THE NORTHEAST LEXICON:
TERMINOLOGY CONVENTIONS AND DATA FRAMEWORK
FOR STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANS
IN THE NORTHEAST REGION
ABSTRACT
State Wildlife Action Plans have been required for federal funding of conservation actions
through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grants
Program since 2005 but there is growing recognition of the value of this comprehensive and
strategic approach beyond the funding context. In particular, the potential of these state plans
to enhance interstate collaboration for habitat management and biodiversity conservation is
evident. To facilitate this collaboration, the states in the northeastern U.S. developed a
common lexicon for State Wildlife Action Plans which will make possible a regional database of
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), threats these species face, habitats they rely on,
and conservation actions proposed to support their populations. A thorough review of existing
systems and a survey of northeastern states were used to develop this set of common
terminology. Here we describe a menu of criteria for screening species to be included on lists of
SGCN and a set of basic information to document SGCN in a regional database. Regional habitat
classification systems for terrestrial and aquatic systems were adopted for use in State Wildlife
Action Plans. Northeast region states have adopted the international standard for classification
of threats (IUCN) along with a qualitative assessment of urgency, severity, extent, and
reversibility. The US Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife TRACS classification system for
conservation actions was adopted as a naming convention and elements of a detailed
description to improve the clarity of conservations actions based on S.M.A.R.T. goals and results
chain planning were also recommended. National guidance for assessing project results, along
with an agreement to utilize standard protocols for species’ population and habitat quality
assessment whenever possible, constitute the guidance for Element 5, Monitoring. Elements 68, related to plan review and public participation rely on existing guidance, leaving states with
considerable flexibility. This Northeast Lexicon will improve inter-state communication,
facilitating regional planning processes and helping states compare species, habitats, threats,
actions, and monitoring plans to find opportunities for collaboration.
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................................1
Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................................................2
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................3
Section I: Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................6
Methods ....................................................................................................................................................................8
Survey Results ............................................................................................................................................................9
Section II: The Northeast Lexicon – User Guide ..........................................................................................................13
Section III: The Northeast Lexicon ...............................................................................................................................17
Chapter 1: Element 1, Species of Greatest Conservation Need ..............................................................................17
Chapter 2: Element 2, Habitats ................................................................................................................................24
Chapter 3: Element 3, Threats .................................................................................................................................30
Chapter 4: Element 4, Actions .................................................................................................................................35
Chapter 5: Element 5, Monitoring ...........................................................................................................................45
Chapter 6: Element 6, Plan Review ..........................................................................................................................48
Background and Rationale .......................................................................................................................................49
Chapter 7: Element 7 and 8, Public participation ....................................................................................................50
Background and Rationale .......................................................................................................................................51
Section III: Conclusion and Recommendations ...........................................................................................................52
Section IV: References .................................................................................................................................................55
Section V: Appendices .................................................................................................................................................57
Appendix A: June 2013 Literature Review ...............................................................................................................57
Appendix B: Survey Questions and Results .............................................................................................................72
Appendix C: Examples of Committee Charter and Outreach Strategy ....................................................................95
This report was coordinated by Karen Terwilliger and prepared by Elizabeth Crisfield, for the
Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee of the Northeast Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies and may be cited as:
Crisfield, E and the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee. 2013. The
Northeast Lexicon: Terminology Conventions and Data Framework for State Wildlife Action
Plans in the Northeast Region. A report submitted to the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity
Technical Committee. Terwilliger Consulting, Inc., Locustville, VA.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Northeast Lexicon provides a customized language and data framework for required
elements of State Wildlife Action Plans. The Lexicon was proposed and developed by the Fish
and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies to facilitate inter-state planning in the Northeast Region. State Wildlife Action Plans
have the potential to enable states to learn from each other and to allow the region to
determine shared threats and priorities – but the diversity of the content and format of the
2005 plans prevented the region from realizing this vision. The Northeast Lexicon establishes a
common language and data framework for State Wildlife Action Plans, without prescribing
planning procedures or requirements thereby providing both flexibility and guidance to states
for their 2015 plan revisions.
The process to develop this common language included extensive research on existing language
and planning systems (Appendix A) and a survey of northeastern states tested receptivity and
brought prior experience and knowledge to bear on the Lexicon development (Appendix B).
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Best Practices for State Wildlife Action Plans
(hereafter “Best Practices Report”) also strongly influenced the choices made in the Northeast
Lexicon. A series of meetings, with State Wildlife Action Plan Coordinators and Wildlife
Diversity Program managers working together to develop a viable Lexicon that balanced
regional consistency and state flexibility, ended with the September 2013 meeting of the Fish
and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee where the Northeast Lexicon was finalized.
The Northeast Lexicon is organized around the congressionally required eight elements for
State Wildlife Action Plans (page 6). Hierarchical naming systems are adopted for
1)
2)
3)
4)
species (existing scientific nomenclature),
landscape-scale habitat types,
threats to species or habitats, and
actions typically recommended to address these threats.
By using these consistent naming systems, common threats to priority species in specific
habitats, along with actions proposed to address them, can be identified across the region.
In addition to these systematic naming systems, data structures provide consistent and
complete description of species, habitats, threats, actions, and monitoring plans.
1) For species (Element 1), the Northeast Lexicon documents many of the most important
status and trend assessments which demonstrate the conservation need of the species.
2) For habitats (Element 2), the Lexicon provides descriptions of extent and condition, both
of which are required in State Wildlife Action Plans.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 3
3) For threats (Element 3), the Northeast Lexicon responds to the Best Practices Report
developed for the 2015 revision period by outlining six characteristics (immediacy,
spatial extent, reversibility, certainty, severity, and likelihood) which are important for
assessing threat risk.
4) Offering improvements to the 2005 plans and addressing the Best Practices Report
guidance to develop clearer action items (Element 4), the Northeast Lexicon provides a
comprehensive guide for describing actions. Using the minimal descriptions in the
Lexicon produces a catalog of proposed actions, while adding the second tier of
descriptions can assist in action prioritization. A third tier of descriptions is provided for
actions that are ready for implementation.
5) A system for developing monitoring plans (Element 5) to assess project success, and
basic elements explaining protocols to monitor species status and trend or habitat
quality are also included in the Northeast Lexicon.
6) Highlights of guidance for plan review and revision (Element 6) and
public/stakeholder/partner engagement (Elements 7 and 8) are provided for easy
reference.
As states work through the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan revision process, the Northeast
Lexicon is being applied, tested, and revised. While it is anticipated that some modifications
may emerge, State Wildlife Action Plan coordinators are confident that the scope and structure
of the Lexicon provides a solid foundation but also believe in its adaptive capacity to continue
to evolve with future knowledge and applications. This report recommends that the Northeast
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies proceed toward the development a regional database
of wildlife action plans, incorporating the data format and structure of the Lexicon and
developing a pilot database application. This pilot will allow us to test and demonstrate the
function of the Lexicon in a database context. The Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical
Committee anticipates this pilot database could be available for states by September 2014, a
year before the State Wildlife Action Plan deadline.
The Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical
Committee should continue to work toward development of a regional web-accessible
database to house individual state’s Wildlife Action Plan content. The completed Lexicon forms
the foundation of a regional database that will facilitate the sharing of information between
states. Such a database will help states share information on priority species, known threats for
these species and needed actions to address these threats – the required elements of State
Wildlife Action Plans.*
A web-accessible regional State Wildlife Action Plan database incorporating the key elements of
individual State Wildlife Action Plans would benefit the region by providing a systematic and
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 4
objective way to understand priority species, habitats, and threats in the region. It would help
states coordinate actions and use similar monitoring protocols by facilitating the sharing of
information. Finally, it would help non-governmental conservation partners support actions on
behalf of wildlife in the northeast region. Because many of these opportunities for
collaboration are dynamic and outside conventional funding streams, facilitating searches for
specific conservation needs can help make these priority actions reality.
This collaborative effort in the northeast region has been highlighted in the Best Practices
Report for State Wildlife Action Plans. It can serve other regions as a template for the
development and the implementation of a Lexicon and regional database. It exemplifies 50
years of collaborative conservation planning in the northeast and visionary leadership of the
Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee, Northeast Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies and the Directors of the fourteen northeast Fish and Wildlife agencies.
*As of September 4, 2014, the NEFWDTC adopted a database developed for the Delaware State
Wildlife Action Plan and based on this report as the template for the regional database. A
proposal to the NEAFWA Directors was accepted to fund the adaptation of this state database
to a regional database with the expectation that State Wildlife Action Plan data will populate
the regional database beginning in the Fall of 2015 after revised plans are submitted, making
regional SWAP data searchable on the web.
This report, the result of Northeast State Wildlife Action Plans: Database Framework for Common
Elements (RCN2011-08) was supported by State Wildlife Grant funding awarded through the
Northeast Regional Conservation Needs (RCN) Program. The RCN Program joins thirteen
northeast states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a partnership
to address landscape-scale, regional wildlife conservation issues. Progress on these regional
issues is achieved through combining resources, leveraging funds, and prioritizing conservation
actions identified in the State Wildlife Action Plans. See RCNGrants.org for more information.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 5
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
In the northeastern U.S., states are numerous and borders often ignore landscape features
which delineate habitat types. Here, states have a history of employing collaborative
approaches for the protection and management of fish and wildlife. This collaboration has been
enhanced through a partnership of the member states of the Northeast Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies (NEAFWA), in particular its Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical
Committee, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) North Atlantic and Appalachian
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs).
The development of State Wildlife Action Plans in 2005 provided a new opportunity to
coordinate conservation actions. While all Wildlife Action Plans had to meet or exceed the eight
Congressionally required elements (see inset text box) (Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce, Justice,
State, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2000) to be accepted by the USFWS, differing
approaches taken by states in developing their Action Plans have made it difficult to compile
and compare information regionally and nationally (Lerner et al. 2006). Among the Wildlife
Action Plans under the jurisdiction of the NEAFWA states, there exists broad commonality in
focus and approach as well as substantial differences because states used different
organizational structures for their plans, different criteria for defining Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (SGCN), different habitat classification systems, and different ways to
describe threats and actions. Most are lengthy documents that are difficult to search, making it
excessively difficult and time consuming, if not impossible, to compare similar conservation
needs across the region or sub-regions.
To address these challenges, in 2012 the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical
Committee received matching funds from NEAFWA Directors to develop a framework that
would allow states, LCC’s, and other partners to compare Wildlife Action Plans across state
lines. At the same time, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies prepared guidance
entitled Best Practices for State Wildlife Action Plans to help states learn from each other and
provide resources to improve the effectiveness of these comprehensive plans (Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Teaming With Wildlife Committee, State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP)
Best Practices Working Group 2012) (hereafter “Best Practices Report”). For states that share
Species of Greatest Conservation Need and habitat types, these best practices encourage the
use of common classification systems. In fact, the Best Practices Report highlighted the
proposal for the Northeast Lexicon as Case Study 3c (p. 21), effectively endorsing this as a
viable solution to the nationally recognized problem of regional collaboration and integration.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 6
Required Elements for State Wildlife Action Plans
Element 1: “… information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low
population and declining species as the state fish and wildlife department deems appropriate, that
are indicative of the diversity and health of wildlife of the state;”
Element 2. “identifies the extent and condition of wildlife habitats and community types essential to
conservation of species identified under Element 1;”
Element 3. “identifies the problems which may adversely affect the species identified under Element
1 or their habitats, and provides for priority research and surveys to identify factors which may assist
in restoration and more effective conservation of such species and their habitats;”
Element 4. “determines those actions which should be taken to conserve the species identified under
Element 1 and their habitats and establishes priorities for implementing such conservation actions;”
Element 5. “provides for periodic monitoring of species identified under Element 1 and their habitats
and the effectiveness of the conservation actions determined under Element 4, and for adapting
conservation actions as appropriate to respond to new information or changing conditions;”
Element 6. “provides for the review the State wildlife conservation strategy and, if appropriate
revision at intervals not to exceed ten years;”
Element 7. “provides for coordination to the extent feasible the State fish and wildlife department,
during development, implementation, review, and revision of the wildlife conservation strategy, with
Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant areas of land or water
within the state, or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of species
identified under Element 1 or their habitats.”
Element 8. “A State shall provide an opportunity for public participation in the development of the
comprehensive plan required under Element 1.”
(Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Public Law 106553, codified at U.S. Code 16 (2000) 669(c))
The need for consistent systems for conservation planning has long been recognized and
important progress has been made. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is implementing a
national conservation action reporting system with uniform metadata for all Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Program funded projects called Wildlife TRACS (Tracking and Reporting Actions
for the Conservation of Species). Independently, the International Union for Conservation of
Nature has adopted a system to classify threats, and actions taken to address these threats.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 7
The northeastern states (Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, and West Virginia) worked together to develop the Northeast Lexicon (this report) –
terminology, definitions, and classifications systems for use in State Wildlife Action Plans.
Terminology has been developed for each of the eight congressionally required elements in
State Wildlife Action Plans. The proposed Wildlife Action Plan terminology can: 1) facilitate the
development of multi-state, regional proposals, 2) clarify how each state’s proposals guide,
align with, or contribute to regional priorities, 3) translate the regional context for state
planning purposes, and 4) make it more likely that other partners will implement recommended
actions.
Thus, the Northeast Lexicon is consistent with recommendations of the Best Practices Report,
meets regional planning goals, and functions holistically, recognizing inter-dependencies
between elements. The Northeast Lexicon is designed to be selectively implemented by states
to meet their diverse needs – balancing state flexibility and regional consistency. It is viewed as
a menu of choices, all of which could be supported by a regional database to facilitate data
sharing between states. The practicality of application of the Lexicon in Wildlife Action Plan
revision and the feasibility of using the information included in the Lexicon for the prioritization
or ranking of threats and actions was also considered.
Planning processes used to develop Wildlife Action Plans are not incorporated in the Northeast
Lexicon. For example, the Best Practices Report emphasizes the importance of prioritization in
conservation planning because it is a strategic approach which is important in light of limited
resources and capacity. Methods for prioritization are a very active area of research and states
are currently exploring approaches. Therefore, terminology and methods for prioritization are
not provided within the Northeast Lexicon, although attempts were made to ensure that the
lexicon outlines the kind of information needed for prioritization.
METHODS
Several key meetings of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee
facilitated discussion regarding the scope, purpose, and format of the Northeast Lexicon. The
process of developing the Northeast Lexicon began with an exhaustive review of existing
approaches for conservation planning and associated terminology and definitions from states in
the northeast region. Other State Wildlife Action Plans were reviewed, along with the USFWS
Wildlife TRACS and the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s systems for describing
threats and actions (developed by Foundations of Success). This comprehensive literature
search was conducted to identify other common, consistent terminology which could inform
this lexicon development. This literature review included assessments of Elements 1-5,
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 8
including species and habitat status, prioritization, vulnerability, threat assessment, and action
definition and prioritization and were summarized in a comprehensive report (Appendix A).
Surveys of the NE jurisdictions were developed to gauge regional receptivity to a more
consistent terminology and a regional database. The March 2013 survey directed toward
Lexicon terminology also intended to identify what states were planning to use in their 2015
revision. Fifteen survey responses, representing ten states provided a basis to understand areas
of potential agreement and disagreement. The June 2012 survey directed toward database
development has 14 responses and showed broad interest in a regional database for State
Wildlife Action Plans, with 54% indicating they were “definitely interested” and the balance
indicating they were “probably interested”. Results of both surveys are summarized below.
These surveys were followed by a series of four meetings and face-to-face deliberations to
identify a balance between state flexibility and regional consistency that the group was
comfortable implementing in their Wildlife Action Plan revisions. Finally, a draft of the agreed
upon Lexicon was reviewed by states and adopted on September 24, 2013.
SURVEY RESULTS
The state survey of Lexicon Terminology (Appendix B) revealed areas of strong agreement,
disagreement, and, in some cases, concepts that were poorly understood or had uncertain
outcomes in State Wildlife Action Plans. These results are summarized here.
Question 3: There was strong agreement on the use of State (100%) and Federal (93%) Listing
status and State Heritage rank (85%) as criteria for including species on lists of Species of
Greatest Conservation Need.
Question 4: The majority (83%) of respondents agreed that attempts should be made to
qualitatively assess population trends for all SGCN while recognizing that abundance data are
lacking for many species.
Question 5: While the most appropriate spatial unit for conservation may be habitat type, 85%
of respondents identified State, County, or Town Boundary as the most practical unit for use in
Wildlife Action Plans, although 77% of respondents also identified Watersheds and 70%
identified Habitat Patches.
Question 6: 77% or more identified the following characteristics as important in describing data
sources for species distributions: the data source, scale, resolution, age, quality, type, and
sensitivity.
Question 7: Regarding the types of data that could be used to document species distributions,
92% agreed element occurrence was appropriate, and 62-80% agreed that source feature,
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 9
presence/absence points, habitat classes, and habitat patches were also acceptable. 31% or less
supported the use of habitat suitability models, niche models, habitat compatibility models,
and buffers.
Questions 8 and 9: Previous work to develop the Northeast Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat
Classification Systems was accepted by 69% of respondents with none dissenting (Q8), however
the further work to develop GIS systems and spatial habitat condition classifications is not
broadly understood (Q9).
Question 10: Using Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and the
Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee as examples of approaches for
selecting Species of Greatest Conservation Need based on conservation need and responsibility,
69% of respondents were willing to work toward a common practice for selecting species of
greatest conservation need.
Questions 11, 12, 13, and 14: More than 92% of responses agreed that immediacy, certainty,
extent, and reversibility are characteristics of threats that should be considered when
determining “conservation need” in combination (Q11) and 85% agreed this makes sense when
considering single threats affecting single species (Q13). Each of these threat characteristics
can be considered in terms of the immediacy and certainty of the impact. There was no
agreement on whether or not a useful approach using just 2 or 3 simple categories could be
developed (Q12). Scale and extent were supported by 85% of the respondents, while
immediacy and reversibility were considered key elements in describing threats by more than
92% of respondents (Q14).
Questions 15 and 16: Most responses (85%) indicated support for movement toward actions
with measureable goals, and the ability to measure plan effectiveness as a whole (Q15). The
terms Goal; Objective, Desired Outcome, and Indicator were seen as useful words in linking
resources with actions and outcomes (>92%) but other aspects of the linkage were poorly
understood by respondents (Q 16).
Question 17: Regarding adaptive management, there was agreement that the following terms
are useful: Performance Indicator (85%), Start (69%), Duration (77%), and Evaluation Cycle
(87%). Fewer responses (55%) supported data management capacity.
Question 18: The link between actions and threats is not always easy to explain. Roughly 83% of
responses indicated “threat addressed by action”, “human factors addressed by action”,
“environmental factors addressed by action”, “biological stresses addressed by action”, and
“expected direct benefits” were all useful in describing the nature of the action-threat link.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 10
Questions 19 and 20: Improving planning processes by employing systematic descriptions of
actions, such as S.M.A.R.T. goals-setting, received strong support with 85% agreeing that the
lexicon should propose terminology in support of this kind of planning process. The same level
of agreement was reached on the idea of assessing the feasibility and efficacy of conservation
actions.
Questions 21 and 22: Many respondents (77%) were willing to work toward a regional scheme
to prioritize conservation (Q21) and effectiveness and cost were considered important factors.
Funding availability, implementer availability, and start date were listed as potential
considerations but opinions on their use in action prioritization were mixed (Q22).
Question 23: In Wildlife Action Plans, actions should be spatially explicit. More than 92%
responses indicated that geo-political boundaries (like counties or towns) would be very
important in defining action locations, but 62% indicated that watersheds and management
planning boundaries would also be useful. Habitat classes and patches were supported as a
geospatial descriptor by only 50% of respondents.
Questions 24, 25, and 28: The importance of identifying data gaps and uncertainties was well
recognized (92%) (Q24) and 75% or more agreed that “uncertainty of causality”, “uncertainty of
effectiveness”, “uncertainty of status” and “information gap” were all relevant in descriptions
of uncertainty in State Wildlife Action Plans (Q25). 75% thought it would be useful to categorize
the “level” of uncertainty, but fewer understood how they would categorize the “risk of
consequence” or the “feasibility of reducing [uncertainty or risk]”.
Question 26: Of the 82% of respondents that agreed that numerous categories might be used
to organize research and monitoring actions proposed in Wildlife Action Plans, 70% or more
supported the following categories: threat detection, change in threat status,
presence/absence surveys for SGCN distribution, relative abundance/density,
reproduction/demography, detect habitat change, survey habitat quality, genetics, detect
contaminants/pollution/air and water quality.
Question 27: At the time of the survey, the majority of respondents could not assess the
usefulness of the Wildlife TRACS system in the Northeast Lexicon (75%).
Questions 29 and 30: Common keyword, metadata, and bibliographic standards were
acceptable to 92% of respondents.
The results of the survey related to a regional database to support inter-state collaboration
indicate relatively strong agreement on the benefits and are summarized here.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 11
Question1: With 7 respondents “definitely interested” and 6 “probably interested”, there was
strong interest in the development of a web-enabled database tool for State Wildlife Action
Plans.
Question 2: Respondents identified the ability to search for recommended actions by species or
location, and the ability to group species by habitat as the most important services of the
database, but also saw the ability to search for actions by habitats or threats as important. The
ability to group species or habitat by threat, or perform more complex correlative searches, was
identified as a secondary capability.
Question 3: Respondents identified a number of other potential services the database could
provide including identifying actions intended to mitigate climate change impacts, serving to
assist in scaling the regional data up and down across jurisdictions, and offering user-friendly
report formats.
Question 4: Indicating the likelihood that each state would use the regional database for their
Wildlife Action Plan revision process, 78% reported they would be “Very likely” or “Somewhat
likely” to use the database with the remainder reporting they were “Not sure”.
Question 5: At the time of the survey, most respondents indicated the database would be most
useful if available sometime in 2013, with the majority identifying a summer month.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 12
SECTION II: THE NORTHEAST LEXICON – USER GUIDE
The Lexicon is organized according to the required Elements. Each Element is organized by the
anticipated sequence of the workflow or by degree of complexity. In either case, it is
anticipated that the first components of an element are most likely to be implemented by all
states (for example, see Element 4, below).
While the 8 elements are identified as unique requirements, there is considerable interaction
between them. The identification of Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Element 1)
considers direct threats to the population (Element 3) or threats to the habitats (Element 2) on
which the species depends. Actions (Element 4) and Monitoring activities (Element 5) are
responses to these identified threats to species and/or habitats. Because of these interdependencies and the availability of data required to assess each Element, there are many
practical approaches to applying the Lexicon within a State Wildlife Action Plan.
In Elements 3 and 4 (Threats and Actions) some states may find the need for additional
classifications to name the relevant threats and proposed actions. In the interest of regional
consistency, states should share these new classifications so other states can also use them.
The detailed outline on the next page provides a quick reference for Elements and their
components.
States are encouraged to use the bibliographic standard of the Journal of Conservation Biology
(http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/JWMguidelines2011.pdf). To help readers find
unpublished sources, website links (URL) to reports should be provided at the end of the
reference. Free bibliographic managers are available including Zotero
(http://www.zotero.org/), Mendley (http://www.mendeley.com/) and the Council of Science
Editors’ Citation Wizard (http://21cif.com/tools/citation/cse/citeWizard_cse_1.0.html).
To improve the consistency of citing Wildlife Action Plans, an example citation should be
provided in the front matter. For example:
Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2015.
Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan. Harrisburg, PA. (link to report)
If prepared by a consultant:
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 2015. Rhode Island Wildlife Action
Plan. Prepared by Terwilliger Consulting, Inc. and the RI Chapter of the Nature Conservancy.
Providence, RI. (link to report)
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 13
Element 1 (Species) Northeast Lexicon provides



a menu of established conservation assessments used by states when selecting their
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (page 19)
o Federal Legal Listing (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/)
o Regional SGCN
o State Legal Listing
o State Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe Rankings
o Regional or Species Group Conservation Prioritization
o IUCN Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org/)
a list of foundational criteria used to explain the addition or exclusion of species from
the Species of Greatest Conservation Need list (page 19)
o Species Abundance and Trend
o Threat
o State Responsibility
o Habitat Trend
o Information Deficient
a set of species characteristics (e.g. scientific name, habitat type) needed for regional
database integration (pages 20-21)
o Scientific Name
o Common Name
o Detailed Scientific Name
o Associated Habitat Type
o Associated Habitat Features
o Habitat Preferences
o Federal Listing
o State Listing
o G-rank (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?init=Species)
o S-rank
o Distribution within the state
o Threats impacting the species
o Population Trend
o Data Confidence
o Data Age
o Data Completion
o Climate Vulnerability Assessment Tool
o Climate Vulnerability Score
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 14
Element 2 (Habitats) Northeast Lexicon provides



a recommendation to use the Northeastern Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification
System (with consistency at the Macrogroup Level) and the Northeast Aquatic Habitat
Classification System to classify and name habitat types (pages 24-26) A ninth formation
class was added to the Terrestrial System for Subterranean Habitats.
a new marine habitat classification system developed for Maine’s SWAP and many
states will work consistently
terminology to consistently describe habitat characteristics (page 27)
o Habitat extent
o Habitat condition
o Threats to Habitat
Element 3 (Threats) Northeast Lexicon provides


a recommendation to use the IUCN hierarchical threat classification system (Salafsky et
al. 2008) and a table that displays the top tier of the system (page 29) along with a
crosswalk to Wildlife TRACS threats
a set of threat characteristics to assess risk or impact (page 30)
o Severity
o Reversibility
o Immediacy
o Spatial extent
o Certainty
o Likelihood
Element 4 (Actions) Northeast Lexicon provides


a recommendation to use the Wildlife TRACS hierarchical action classification system
and a table displaying the system along with a crosswalk to IUCN actions
a set of action characteristics to provide a complete description of the proposed action,
including monitoring and adaptive management plans (page 34-36)
o Name (For all actions)
o Title (For all actions)
o Objective (For all actions)
o General Strategy (For all actions)
o Purpose (For all actions and for prioritization of actions)
o Benefits (For prioritization of actions)
o Estimated Costs (For prioritization of actions)
o Performance Metric (For implementation of actions)
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 15
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Urgency (For prioritization of actions)
Duration (For prioritization of actions)
Longevity of results (For prioritization of actions)
Likelihood of Implementation (For prioritization of actions)
Likelihood of Success (For prioritization of actions)
Constraints/Other factors (For prioritization of actions)
Implementing Organizations (For implementation of actions)
Key Stakeholders (For implementation of actions)
Location (For implementation of actions)
Detailed Strategy (For implementation of actions)
Element 5 (Monitoring) Northeast Lexicon provides



a recommendation to use the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
recommendations from “Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife Grants” to assess
action results (page 41) (http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/Effectiveness-MeasuresReport_2011.pdf)
a recommendation to use standard protocols or well-described protocols for species
monitoring (page 41)
a recommendation to use standard protocols or well-described protocols for habitat
quality monitoring (page 42)
Element 6 (Plan Review) Northeast Lexicon provides

a summary table of guidance provided by the national Best Practices Report explaining
the differing requirements for Comprehensive Review, Major Revision, and Minor
Revision related to the following (page 44)
o Date of review
o Summary of changes
o Explanation of no change
o Web access to the plan
o Public review
o Documentation of public review
o Taxa experts
Elements 7 and 8 (Public Engagement) Northeast Lexicon provides


Definitions for public, stakeholders, and partners (page 46)
An explanation of the differences in communication strategies for each group (page 46)
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 16
SECTION III: THE NORTHEAST LEXICON
CHAPTER 1: ELEMENT 1, SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED
Identifying “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (SGCN) implies the use of a method to
select species based on fundamental considerations such as population status and trend or
known threats. After identifying potential screening criteria based on the experiences of the
NEAFWA states, drawing on Wildlife Action Plans around the U.S., and reviewing approaches
used by other conservation organizations, the Northeast Lexicon represents common sources
and considerations for selection of SGCN. These criteria are practical and functional and aim to
encompass the range of criteria used by northeastern states when determining Species of
Greatest Conservation Need.
The choice of criteria and methods for their application will be made by each state. In the
interest of transparency and consistency with the Best Practices Report, Wildlife Action Plans
should specify the criteria selected and the methods used so that differences between state
lists can be understood and explained. If thresholds specific to an established assessment
source are selected (e.g., the range of S-ranks and use of uncertain S-ranks for selecting a
subset of species from Natural Heritage Program data, or the categories of vulnerability
assigned to species on the IUCN Red List) these choices should also be noted in the explanation
of methods.
Most states will use established species assessments (Table 1) as a starting point for selecting
SGCN because these established species lists provide a ranking of species concern based on
some of the fundamental considerations used to select SGCN (Table 2). Species found on the
established assessment lists (Table 1) could all be considered for inclusion as state SGCN, but
after reviewing the fundamental considerations (Table 2) some species may not be listed as
state SGCN. Conversely, some species not found on the established assessment lists (Table 1)
may be listed as state SGCN after reviewing the fundamental considerations (Table 2). If states
choose not to list Regional SGCN as state SGCN, even though they occur in the state, the
Wildlife Action Plan should include a description of the species’ current status in the state and
any conservation or monitoring activities occurring in the state. Also, some states have elected
to include indicator, keystone or representative species as SGCN even if the species is not
vulnerable.
Once species are identified as SGCN, information to identify and describe the species, their
habitats, their threats, and the quality of available data should be included in Wildlife Action
Plans (Table 3). Choices related to taxonomic conventions should be documented. The
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies recommends the following taxonomic conventions for
use in Wildlife Action Plans.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 17
Reptiles and Amphibians: The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) is the
official taxonomy for North American amphibians and reptiles north of
Mexico. http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php
Birds: The American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American Birds is the official
source on the taxonomy of birds found in North and Middle America, including adjacent
islands. http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/
Mammals: Wilson and Reeder’s (2005) Mammal Species of the World: a taxonomic and
geographic reference. Available as an online database
at http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/index.cfm
Fishes: Page, L.M., H. Espinosa-Perez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, N.E. Mandrak, R.L.
Mayden, and J.S. Nelson. 2013. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States,
Canada, and Mexico, 7th edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda,
Maryland. http://fisheries.org/shop/51034c (for purchase)
Invertebrates: use NatureServe Explorer. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
Plants: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service PLANTS
Database. http://plants.usda.gov/java/
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 18
Table 1. The Northeast Lexicon recommends considering the species in these established
assessments for inclusion as state SGCN:
Federal Legal Listing
Regional SGCN
State Legal Listing
State Natural Heritage
Program and
NatureServe Rankings
Regional or Species
Group Conservation
Prioritization
IUCN Red List
species that are federally-listed as threatened or endangered if the
species occurs within the state; some states may also consider
candidate or petitioned species after positive 90-day finding
species that are listed as NEAFWA Regional SGCN (2013) if the
species occurs within the state
species that are state-listed with a legal designation that indicates
need for conservation (e.g., threatened, endangered)
species with global ranks (G1-G3 ) and state ranks (S1-S3); some
states may also consider historical, extirpated or possibly extirpated
species (GX, GH, SX, SH) or species with uncertain ranks
conservation prioritizations are available for some species groups
through prominent organizations and planning systems (e.g. Partners
in Flight, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Partnership for
Amphibian and Reptile Conservation)
species that are Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN),
Vulnerable (VU) or Near Threatened (NT)
Table 2. The Northeast Lexicon recognizes these fundamental considerations for assessing
species conservation need:
Species Abundance and
Trend
Threat
State Responsibility
Habitat Trend
Information Deficient
Population status and trends for a species, including extirpation
status
The number, immediacy, extent, and/or reversibility of known
threats to species populations
The relative importance of the state to conservation of the species,
compared to other states or countries in the species’ range.
Changes in the extent or condition of habitat which may be closely
related to threats (e.g. climate change, land use change associated
with development, or insect pests which can change the
composition of a forest)
Species that lack sufficient documentation to appear in sources
listed in Table 1, or to be justified based on abundance, trend,
threat, or habitat concerns may be considered SGCN with an interest
in research to better understand conservation needs
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 19
Table 3: Information about each species that could be included in State Wildlife Action Plans
and the regional database.
Data Name
Data Description
Data Format and
example
Naming conventions should follow taxonomic
standards recommended by the Best Practices
Report (p. 10).
Genus and species
Common Name
Naming should follow standards when available
(e.g., American Ornithologists’ Union checklist for
birds).
i.e. Northern Flying
Squirrel
Detailed Scientific
Name
If used as a conservation target, subspecies or
population segment may be provided.
i.e. Glaucomys sabrinus
macrotis
Associated Habitat
Type
Species should be linked to habitat types using the
Northeast Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification
System or the Northeast Aquatic Habitat
Classification System (see Element 2). Multiple
habitats may be selected considering core,
supporting, breeding, migratory, wintering or other
special habitat use.
NETWHCS or NEAHCS
(dropdown menus)
Associated Habitat
Features
If the species is associated with particular sites
within the habitat classification systems, these site
conditions should be identified. (e.g. Boulder fields,
springs, seeps, vernal pools, rocky outcrops, caves,
manmade structures, cliffs, talus slopes, flat rocks in
stream beds)
i.e. Old-growth
Habitat
Preferences
This is a narrative field to explain, in more detail,
the habitat requirements or preferences of the
species.
i.e. Northern flying
squirrels prefer oldgrowth boreal forests
that contain a heavy
coniferous component,
moist soils, and lots of
downed woody debris.
Federal Listing
This documents the federal listing of species.
Endangered,
Threatened, Candidate,
Petitioned with 30-day
finding, no status
Scientific Name
i.e. Glaucomys sabrinus
(see Element 2)
i.e. no status
State Listing
This documents the state listing of species.
State listing classes
i.e. Endangered
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 20
G-rank
Global ranks can be downloaded from NatureServe
for all species in a state.
G1, G2, G3, G4, G5,
G1G2, G2G3, G3G4,
G1G3, G2G4, G3G5, GU,
GX, GH, GNR, GNA
S-rank
The most up-to-date state ranks should be sourced
from State Natural Heritage Programs or other instate source.
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S1S2,
S2S3, S3S4, S4S5, S1S3,
S2S4, S3S5, SU, SX, SH,
SNR, SNA
Distribution within
the state
Species distributions may be defined in terms of
mapped units such as watersheds, habitat
classification systems, geopolitical boundaries,
models or other useful spatial units.
i.e. Sites are located in
the following counties:
Wayne, Pike, Monroe,
Carbon, Luzerne,
Warren and Potter
Threats impacting
the species
Threats should be listed and anticipated interactions
between these threats should also be noted.
IUCN Threats, as
amended
i.e. 5.3.4 Biological
Resource Use/ Logging
and Wood Harvesting /
unintentional effects
large scale
Population Trend
Quantitative assessments or qualitative assessments
such as increasing, decreasing, stable, or unknown
(used by the IUCN RedList) may be suitable.
Data Confidence
Quality of available data, considering completeness,
age, and other factors, should be assessed.
Excellent, Good, Fair,
Poor, Data Deficient
Excellent – very useful for management decisions,
recent, complete, accurate.
Poor – data are unreliable for management
decisions because it is historical, sparse, and/or has
questionable accuracy and cannot be verified.
Data Age
This field could recognize data as historical vs
current, or it could provide a date range
Data Completion
consistency of data over time or space.
Climate
Vulnerability
Assessment Tool
This field could describe the methods of an original
climate vulnerability assessment or simply refer to
an existing tool
Name of Tool
Climate
Vulnerability Score
This field contains the results of the assessment.
Numeric score or code
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 21
Climate
This field contains notes about the factors that most
Vulnerability
contributed to the species’ vulnerability
Factors
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
Name of factor
State Wildlife Action Plans are required to identify “species in greatest need of conservation”.
These species should include low, declining, and otherwise vulnerable populations that are
indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife. For each of these species, the
distribution and abundance should be reported.
This Northeast Lexicon will help northeastern states communicate which factors were used and
how they were used to select the state’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Differences
between state lists will be more easily understood, and a regional database will more readily
document methodological differences between states if criteria have standard descriptions.
This transparency was highly recommended in the national Best Practices Report for Wildlife
Action Plans.
The species screening criteria selected for the Northeast Lexicon are very commonly applied in
Wildlife Action Plans nationwide (see Appendix A). Specifically:





Threatened and Endangered species status (federal and state) implies that sufficient
documentation of species vulnerability has already been provided and warrants
inclusion on the state’s SGCN list, provided the species relies on habitat within the state.
Likewise, species included on the Regional SGCN list have already been screened and
vetted within the northeast region. Survey results showed nearly unanimous agreement
with using federal and state listing as a criteria for state SGCN.
State Natural Heritage Programs provide state-specific data, including abundance and
trend, to assess species population stability. The Best Practices Report recommends the
NatureServe conservation status assessment methodology (described below), used by
State Heritage Programs, as a standardized method for assessing extinction/extirpation
risk. Additional assessments of abundance and trend information (required in Element
1) and species-specific assessment tools may also be included in the screening criteria
for SGCN through established independent assessment programs, such as Partners in
Flight.
Global rankings can highlight species vulnerability and/or importance from the broadest
possible perspective.
While abundance and trend data may be lacking for some species, this information is
typically the foundation for identifying vulnerable species and is required by Element 1.
Threat severity is a factor in predicting vulnerability especially when species do not yet
exhibit impacts (e.g. climate change effects) and the Best Practices Report recommends
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 22



that immediacy and magnitude of threats be considered in the process of assessing
species’ conservation needs.
The Best Practices Report encourages the consideration of the importance of state
habitat in determining SGCN (pg. 6) and this consideration has been calculated (albeit in
different ways) in the northeast region for some time.
Trends in habitat extent or condition can be important indicators of population trends.
This information also helps determine which conservation objectives and strategies will
benefit multiple species.
Species that lack information to determine the appropriate level of conservation
concern may be included as SGCN so that population surveys and research to
understand habitat requirements can lead to a more informed decision about
conservation needs. However, research projects for species that are not SGCN may be
proposed to determine the degree of conservation concern.
NatureServe’s Conservation Status Assessment (Master et al. 2012) is highly recommended in
the Best Practices Report. The fundamental considerations provided in the Northeast Lexicon
encompass the scope of factors used in the NatureServe Conservation Status Assessment (Table
4).
Table 4. Factors used in the NatureServe Conservation Status Assessment.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 23
CHAPTER 2: ELEMENT 2, HABITATS
The word “habitat” can be interpreted in many ways, even within the Wildlife Action Plan.
Commonly, “habitat” either describes the specific needs of a particular species/guild or is a
classification of vegetation or other structure underlying habitat type. While it is clearly linked
to the Species of Greatest Conservation Need in plan requirements, Wildlife Action Plans are
comprehensive planning documents that guide conservation actions statewide, and thus
benefit from taking a landscape-scale perspective that can produce multi-species plans.
Furthermore, for the vast majority of species, insufficient data on habitat use and requirements
prevents detailed species-specific habitat descriptions. To resolve these disparate
interpretations of “habitat”, the Northeast Lexicon Element 2 primarily views habitat
classification from the landscape scale while providing for species-specific habitat description in
Element 1.
Habitat Type. The Northeastern Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification System (hereafter
Terrestrial Habitat Classification) (Figure 1) was developed in 2008 to provide a coarse but
cohesive system to describe the physical
and biological characteristics relevant to
wildlife conservation (Gawler 2008). The
habitat classification consists of two levels
– a habitat system (Table 5) and a
structural modifier (Table 6). The habitat
system corresponds to the ecological
system units developed by NatureServe
which occur in the Northeast, with
additional systems for altered habitats and
land-use types. The hierarchical system
includes 7 Formation Classes at the top
level, 15 Formations in the second tier, 35
Macrogroups in the third tier and 143
habitat types comprise the bottom level
(fourth tier) of a hierarchical system (Table
5). Structural modifiers can be added to
describe cover (herbaceous, shrub, open
water), age classes, disturbance history, or
geologic features like karst (Table 6).
Figure 1. Northeast Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Classification System.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 24
Table 5. Formations and Macrogroups comprising the Northeast Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Classification System. Formation 9 (Subterranean) was added for NE SWAPs.
Formation Class
Formation Name
Southeastern Upland Forest
Salt Marsh
Macrogroup
Longleaf Pine
Southern Oak-Pine
Central Oak-Pine
Northern Hardwood & Conifer
Plantation and Ruderal Forest
Exotic Upland Forest
Southern Bottomland Forest
Coastal Plain Swamp
Central Hardwood Swamp
Northeastern Floodplain Forest
Northern Swamp
Boreal Upland Forest
Boreal Forested Peatland
Glade and Savanna
Outcrop & Summit Scrub
Lake & River Shore
Ruderal Shrubland & Grassland
Coastal Grassland & Shrubland
Northern Peatland
Coastal Plain Peatland
Central Appalachian Peatland
Coastal Plain Pond
Emergent Marsh
Wet Meadow / Shrub Marsh
Modified / Managed Marsh
Salt Marsh
Alpine
Alpine
Intertidal
Intertidal Shore
Cliff and Talus
Flatrock
Rocky Coast
Agricultural
Maintained Grasses and Mixed
Cover
Urban/Suburban Built
Extractive
Northeastern Upland Forest
1. Forest and Woodland
Northeastern Wetland Forest
Boreal Upland Forest
Boreal Wetland Forest
Grassland and Shrubland
Coastal Scrub-Herb
2. Shrubland and
Grassland
Peatland
Freshwater Marsh
4. Polar and High
Montane
5. Aquatic (in part)
6. Sparsely Vegetated
Rock
Cliff & Rock
7. Agricultural
Agricultural
8. Developed
No name provided
9. Subterranean
Caves and karst
Mines, tunnels, and other
developed
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 25
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 26
Table 6. Structural modifiers to provide additional detail about the habitat condition.
Quantitative classes are provided for each modifier type (see NETWHCS documentation).
Gross Cover Type
Forest (>10% tree cover of >5m)
Shrubland and mixed shrub/herb
(not forest, and >10% shrub
cover)
Herbaceous (nor forest or
shrubland, and >10% herb cover
Special modifiers for wetlands
Special modifiers - other
Modifier Type
Canopy cover
Evergreen:deciduous ratio (%
evergreen)
Number of canopy layers
Recently burned (detectable)
Stand development
Understory shrub/herb layer
% shrub cover
Shrub height
Evergreen:deciduous (as % evergreen)
Cover
Grass/forb height
Native/introduced
Scattered tall shrubs/small trees
Saltmarsh elevation
Open water
Karst
States are encouraged to use the macrogroup level (Table 5) without modification for regional
consistency. However, habitat systems may be customized within each state to match
classification systems used in 2005 or to better describe the habitats of greatest conservation
need. In instances for which more specific habitat requirements are known for a given species,
the structural modifier may be used.
The Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System (hereafter Aquatic Habitat Classification) is
a standardized classification system and GIS dataset to describe and map stream systems across
the Northeast (Olivero and Anderson 2008). The system and data consistently represents the
natural flowing-water aquatic habitat types across this region in a manner that is useful for
conservation planning. The system was designed to unify state classifications and promote an
understanding of aquatic biodiversity patterns across the entire region. It is not intended to
override local stream classifications but rather to put them into a broader context. This
approach can be implemented across regional scales using GIS modeled variables that shape
aquatic habitats such as stream size, slope, elevation, climate, and geology and lake size,
elevation, shoreline sinuosity, and connectivity. This dataset can be used similarly to the
Terrestrial Habitat Classification. The Aquatic Habitat Classification is being revised to better
represent lakes and ponds, so Wildlife Action Plans should refer to updated documentation.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 27
States worked together to develop a classification system for marine habitats in Fall 2014.
Although not formally adopted, states generally agree that Maine’s system is comprehensive
and sufficiently detailed to represent the important marine habitats for SWAPs. Like the
terrestrial and aquatic systems, the marine system is hierarchical:
Formation
Intertidal
Subtidal
Macrogroup
Mudflat
Sandy Shore
Molusc Reefs
Bedrock
Gravel Shore
Tidal Marsh (peat-forming)
Water Column
Mud Bottom
Sand Bottom
Molusc Reefs
Bedrock Bottom
Coarse Gravel Bottom
Pelagic (Water Column)
Habitat Extent. Both the terrestrial and aquatic systems are available with GIS coverage for the
entire region. A map of the habitat type being described could be included in Wildlife Action
Plans along with the acreage and the percent of the state classified in the habitat type. For the
purposes of describing state habitat, extents of habitat types occurring within the state should
be provided. For individual species, habitat extent (habitat used) may be less than the full
extent of the habitat type. When this information is available, states may choose to describe
habitat extent for a species’ population, rather than the entire habitat type, but it should be
made clear which extent is quantified.
Habitat Condition. Condition may be described as a result of the Geospatial Condition Analysis
of Northeast Habitats currently being prepared as RCN Project 2009-02. The project evaluates
the current condition of terrestrial and aquatic habitats across the northeast focusing on
indicators of human modification, securement, land impacts (such as hydraulic fracturing), and
connectivity since these directly reflect the quality or degradation of habitat. Other potentially
useful sources of condition assessment include the UMASS Index of ecological integrity and the
NALCC “condition ranks”. States may wish to downscale the regional dataset using more
specific data available for their state.
Threats to Habitat. All threats that have impacts on the habitat type can be selected from the
classification system provided for Element 3.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 28
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
State Wildlife Action Plans must describe the extent and condition of habitats and community
types that are essential to the conservation of “Species of Greatest Conservation Need”. The
Best Practices Report recommends a regional approach and specifically mentions the Northeast
Habitat Classification System (Terrestrial Wildlife and Aquatic) as examples.
While the northeastern states used different vegetation classification systems in their initial
Wildlife Action Plans, the Northeastern Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification System (which
is based on ecological systems developed by NatureServe) and Northeastern Aquatic Habitat
Classification System were developed under funding from the northeast states, as they
determined this was an essential tool for use in multi-state species recovery efforts. Crosswalks
between habitat systems used by northeastern states in previous Wildlife Action Plans are
provided in Appendix D of The Northeast Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification System
Report (Gawler 2008).
Additional work by Mark Anderson (The Nature Conservancy) provides the most applicable and
feasible method to describe and quantify habitat condition, consistent with the choice to use
the habitat classification systems developed for the region. However, states will rely on higher
resolution or ground-truthed habitat condition information when it is available.
In addition, this lexicon suggests that threats specific to habitat types also be identified to
facilitate project prioritization, funding, and reporting.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 29
CHAPTER 3: ELEMENT 3, THREATS
Threats come from many different sources, and impacts can be observed at different spatial,
temporal, and biological scales. As a result, the risk of the impacts is wide-ranging, as are
actions taken in response. The Northeast Lexicon provides a hierarchical system for classifying
and naming threats, based on the IUCN classification system (Salafsky et al. 2008) and threat
characteristics that are important in determining threat risk and appropriate responses.
Threat Classification System: The Northeast Lexicon adopts the IUCN threat classification
system to classify and name threats. This system is hierarchical, with three tiers and is used in
the NatureServe rank calculator (see Element 1). The top tier indicates the broadest
categorization of threats and includes:
1. Residential and Commercial Development
2. Agriculture and Aquaculture
3. Energy Production and Mining
4. Transportation and Service Corridors
5. Biological Resource Use
6. Human Intrusions and Disturbance
7. Natural System Modifications
8. Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes
9. Pollution
10. Geological Events
11. Climate Change and Severe Weather.
Within this structure, regionally agreed upon or state-specific threats may be added when
necessary. For example, in recognition of the need to identify administrative motivations for
conservation actions, the TRACS action drivers were added to this list (a more detailed list of
action drivers can be found in Table 9):
12. Resource Management Needs
13. Recreation Needs
14. Education / Outreach Needs
15. Administrative Needs
An excel spreadsheet providing a crosswalk between IUCN and TRACS threat classification
systems is provided as a reference at: http://rcngrants.org/content/northeast-regionalconservation-synthesis-state-wildlife-action-plan-revisions-0
Threat risk. To rank threats by risk (level of impact considering severity and likelihood), the
Northeast Lexicon provides definitions for the severity, reversibility, immediacy, spatial extent,
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 30
certainty, and likelihood of threats (Table 7). These definitions may apply to single threats, or
the compounding impact of interacting threats.
Table 7. Threat characteristics and categorical ratings.
Threat Characteristic
Low Impact
Moderate Impact
High Impact
Severity
Slight Severity: Degree
of ecological change is
minor
Moderate Severity:
Degree of ecological
change is substantial
Severe: Degree of
ecological change is
major
Reversibility (Consider
the likelihood of
reversing the impacts
within 10 years)
Reversible: Effects of
the threat can be
reversed by proven
actions
Reversible with
difficulty: Effects of
the threat may be
reversed but costs or
logistics make action
impractical
Irreversible: Effects of
the threat are
irreversible
Immediacy (This
characteristic assesses
the time scale over
which impacts of the
threat will be
observable.)
Long-term: Effects of
the threat are
expected in 10-100
years given known
ecosystem interactions
or compounding
threats
Near-term: Effects of
the threat are
expected within the
next 1 - 10 years
Immediate: Effects of
the threat are
immediately
observable (current or
existing)
Spatial Extent (Consider
impact of threat within
10 years)
Localized: (<10%) A
small portion of the
habitat or population
is negatively impacted
by the threat.
Dispersed or Patchy:
(10-50%)
Pervasive: (>50%) A
large portion of the
habitat or population
is negatively impacted
by the threat.
Certainty
Low Certainty: threat
is poorly understood,
data are insufficient, or
the response to threat
is poorly understood
Moderate Certainty:
some information
describing the threat
and ecological
responses to it is
available, but many
questions remain
High Certainty:
Sufficient information
about the threat and
ecological responses to
it is available
Likelihood (Consider
impact of the threat
within 10 years) (This
characteristic is used to
assess the certainty
Unlikely: Effects of the
threat are unlikely to
occur (less than 30%
chance)
Likely: Effects of threat
are likely to occur (3099% chance)
Occurring: Effects of
the threat are already
observable (100%
chance)
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 31
surrounding the threat
and its impacts.)
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 32
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
State Wildlife Action Plans must include descriptions of problems adversely affecting Species of
Greatest Conservation Need or their habitats. The Best Practices Report for State Wildlife
Action Plans recommends the use of the IUCN threat classification system (Salafsky et al. 2008).
Threats are viewed as important factors in prioritization of actions and ranking of conservation
need.
After considering the applicability of the Wildlife TRACS and IUCN threat classification systems
and the scope of threats addressed by conservation actions proposed in Wildlife Action Plans
for northeastern states, the IUCN classification system appears most useful at this time, due in
part to the more limited number of threats addressed in Wildlife TRACS. The IUCN system is
also the recommended choice in the Best Practices Report. However, because actions will often
be reported through the Wildlife TRACS system, a translation from IUCN to Wildlife TRACS is
provided to facilitate data management.
In addition to naming threats, understanding threat characteristics can help highlight
opportunities for species and habitat management or protection. Proposals to fund
conservation actions typically explain the threat being addressed in the project justification,
and reporting systems, such as Wildlife TRACS, integrate threat identification. To best meet
these planning, funding, and reporting needs, utilizing this lexicon will help ensure that all
needed information is available in the Wildlife Action Plan. It may also minimize workload as
each proposed action is considered for funding or final results are reported and presented. In
addition, it may be possible to prioritize threats (and/or associated actions) for regional
coordination if multiple states have identified them as pervasive, severe, and/or immediate.
The extensive review of existing conservation planning approaches (see Appendix A) along with
needs presented by northeastern states led to the threat characteristics described above. The
first four characteristics were widely used by the organizations surveyed. Many of the reviewed
approaches used four levels of impact. The three-level approach described here provides a
more rapid assessment yet still distinguishes threats. Some approaches characterize past,
present, and future threats. Current and future threats are represented here by the
“immediacy” characteristic, but past threats are not included.
Immediacy – Other approaches have used the terms urgency or timing. The choice presented
above is very similar to Master et al. (2012) and Salafsky et al. (2003).
Spatial extent – Several alternatives were found in the literature, especially “scope”. The
Northeast Lexicon uses the term “spatial extent” because it is more specific, and many of the
other words used by conservation organizations are employed in the impact descriptions for
spatial extent, such as “localized”, “patchy”, “pervasive”, and the reference to a “portion” of
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 33
habitat. The possibility of interpreting “spatial extent” in the context of populations distributed
across the state was added. NALCC and the Geospatial Habitat Condition Analysis provide
additional information from models and predictions of spatial extent (NALCC 2013 and
Anderson 2013- both ongoing)
Reversibility – The impact levels for this characteristic are adapted from Salafsky et al. (2003).
Certainty – Uncertainty is a long-standing and challenging issue for natural resource managers.
In the IUCN guidance for assessors (related to assigning CR/EN/VU ratings), uncertainty is seen
as being derived from three sources: natural variability, vagueness in the terms and definitions
used in the criteria, and measurement error (Akçakaya et al. 2000, IUCN Standards and
Petitions Subcommittee 2013). Lack of data is not considered a part of uncertainty in the IUCN
approach. In the discussion of how to deal with uncertainty, IUCN recognizes that risk tolerance
and dispute tolerance are factors in decision-making with uncertain information. IUCN
recommends a “precautionary but realistic attitude”. For the purposes of the Lexicon, lack of
data has been included as a source of uncertainty.
Severity – Other approaches have variously used the terms “severity”, “intensity”, and
“impact”. The lexicon reserves the word “severity” for the overall assessment based on all of
the threat characteristics and uses “intensity” to represent the degree of impact associated
with the threat. “Impact” was used for all characteristics to represent the scale of influence the
threat would have on resources.
Likelihood – Sometimes referred to as probability as in (Salafsky et al. 2003).
Other options were considered but not included in the lexicon. “Duration” has not been
included because few threats will have short durations making this characteristic less useful for
distinguishing threat severity, however, it will probably be considered in the assessment of
“intensity” since longer “duration” threats will have greater “intensity” impacts. “Persistence”
was not included for similar reasons. “Contribution”, referring to sources, is addressed outside
the severity assessment table. “Impact”, as used to describe species or habitat threats, is
incorporated in lexicons for Elements 1 and 2.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 34
CHAPTER 4: ELEMENT 4, ACTIONS
Conservation actions often involve physical management of natural resources, but many other
types of actions have been proposed in support of wildlife conservation such as property
easements to influence land management, recreational use guidelines, education or outreach,
and species reintroduction. In some cases, a lack of knowledge about species’ requirements
inhibits the planning of these more tangible actions, and research or survey actions are
required to fill these knowledge gaps.
A complete description of a proposed action would include who is responsible for the action,
what will be done, with what benefits, when and where it will be done, how the desired results
will be achieved, how progress will be measured, and why the action is being taken. However,
because Wildlife Action Plans are planning documents encompassing the wide range of actions
listed above, action descriptions must be adaptable. All actions can be classified and named
using one naming convention system but not all actions can be fully detailed using all the
descriptive prompts provided for in the Lexicon.
Action Classification System: The Northeast Lexicon adopts the Wildlife TRACS action
classification system with a small number of amended categories. The system is sufficiently
broad in scope with an appropriate level of detail. It is hierarchical, with three tiers. The top tier
(listed below) indicates the broadest level of actions. Official TRACS resources (found at
https://tracs.fws.gov/wiki/ in the Classroom Handouts Space) should be used as a reference.














Coordination and Administration
Direct Management of Natural Resources
Data Collection and Analysis
Education
Facilities and Areas
Land and Water Rights Acquisition and Protection
Law Enforcement
Outreach
Planning
Species Reintroduction and Stocking
Technical Assistance
Law and Policy (not in Wildlife TRACS)
Species Management (such as Harvest Management and Trade Management) (not in
Wildlife TRACS)
Partnerships (not in Wildlife TRACS)
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 35
An excel spreadsheet providing a crosswalk between TRACS and IUCN action classification
systems is provided as a reference at: http://rcngrants.org/content/northeast-regionalconservation-synthesis-state-wildlife-action-plan-revisions-0
Action Description: To address the challenge of systematically describing actions, the Northeast
Lexicon provides a set of descriptors that can be used as a template for comprehensive action
description (Table 8). The Northeast Lexicon recommends that states strive to provide, for all
actions, a name, objective, general strategy, and purpose. This level of description is likely to be
appropriate for all actions regardless of the readiness for implementation. The additional
descriptors can be selected, as appropriate, to describe actions in a Wildlife Action Plan
providing a guide for information that would need to be prepared before implementation of
the action. For action prioritization, the purpose (identifying target species or habitats and
threats), benefits, costs, urgency, longevity of results, and likelihood of success are common
factors that are helpful for deriving maximum conservation benefit given limited funding.
Table 8. Action descriptors.
Lexicon
Terminology
Content
Explanation
Name
The Action name is
selected from Wildlife
TRACS classification
system (amended)
The lexicon described here uses the Wildlife TRACS
classification system with hierarchical codes developed.
This system includes amendments to incorporate a few
actions from the IUCN system (above). Every action
should be classified according to the amended Wildlife
TRACS system at as detailed a level as possible.
Title
Short descriptive name
unique to action
Unique action/species or action/habitat combination
Objective
A concise statement of
the objective of the action
An objective is “a specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time-limited statement that describes the
desired short, medium, or long-term outcomes of a
conservation action.”
General
Strategy
A concise description of
the nature of the strategy
for achieving the objective
The strategy to address the objective should be
described generally. (More detailed explanation can be
provided in the answer to the question “How?”)
Purpose
Identify Species or
Habitats directly
benefiting from the
action, or threats being
reduced by the action
Linking an action to a threat (Element 3) or action driver
(Table 9) and to the resource that will benefit such as
target species (Element 1) or habitats (Element 2)
provides a clear explanation of the motivation for the
action and begins to reveal the results chain linking the
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 36
strategy to the threat and the expected ecosystem
response to mitigating the threat.
Benefits
Depending on the action,
benefits (direct or
indirect) may be habitat
improvements, species’
responses, reductions in
threat risk, or public or
stakeholder benefits.
These answers will likely be suggested by defining what
the action is and why it is being taken. However, efforts
to prioritize actions will probably require specific
benefits to be considered. Answering this question
clearly may also help define the measures of project
success. It may be helpful to explain the direct benefits
and contrast them with the indirect benefits.
Estimated
Costs
This should include total
future costs in current
dollar values, but not
include any past expenses
for infrastructure that will
be used by proposed
action.
Categories:
 Unknown
 < $10,000
 $10,000 - $49,999
 $50,000 - $99,999
 $100,000 - $499,999
 $500,000 - $999,999
 > $1,000,000
If action descriptions are intended to be used for action
prioritization, cost estimates, even very rough ones, may
be helpful. This should include total future costs in
current dollar values, but not include any past expenses
for infrastructure that will be used by proposed action.
Estimates are available from business plans, Joint
Ventures, and Partners in Flight.
For prioritization purposes, states may choose to
calculate cost/acre treated or cost/species to
compensate for the fact that multi-species projects may
be more expensive than single species projects. A very
detailed process for action prioritization is described and
evaluated in “Optimal Allocation of Resources among
Threatened Species: a Project Prioritization Protocol”
(Joseph et al. 2009).
States may add subcategories as needed, but should
avoid using the unknown category if possible.
Performance
Metric
From TRACS or other
more specific sources
The performance metric is how success is measured and
defined.
Urgency
The urgency of the action
should estimate the ideal
timeframe for completing
the action.
Categories:
 Initiate immediately
(2016)
 Initiate within 5 years
(2017-2020)
 Initiate within 5-10
years (2020-2025)
 Can wait 10 years to
initiate (2025)
This is a relative estimate of the urgency of the action
given the severity of the threats and the priority of the
species or habitat
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 37
Duration
How long will action take to
complete (or need to
persist)?
 <1 year
 1-2 years
 2-5 years
 5-10 years
 >10 years
Longevity of
results
What is the longevity of the
results?
 <3 years
 3-10 years
 10-20 years
 20-50 years
 >50 years
Likelihood of
Implementatio
n
Can the action be
implemented:
Categories
 Unlikely/Unknown (<30%)
 Likely (30-90%)
 Certain/Very Likely (90100%)
Likelihood of
Success
To what degree will the
action address the threat or
improve species’ populations
or habitats?
Categories
 Unlikely/Unknown <30%
(not tested/implemented
anywhere)
 Likely 30-90% (e.g., BMP
or sufficient information
available)
 Certain/Very Likely 90100% (demonstrated by
other projects)
Constraints/Ot
her factors
(narrative)
Describe constraints?
Implementing
Organization
TRACS needs “Lead
Organization” and
“Partners”. (Organizations
or individuals responsible
for implementing the
action or partners who
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
How long will the benefits continue after the action is
completed?
For example: Regulations or Administrative, Environmental
(risks to other habitats/SGCN), or Resource (financial or
personnel)
If possible, an individual or agency responsible for
managing the action could be identified. Partners that
should be consulted or engaged could also be identified.
Page 38
can assist.) Categories at
Regional Level: e.g.
federal, state, non-profit,
university,
commercial/consulting
Key
Stakeholders
Identify stakeholders
Identify any parties that might be affected by the action
and prepare for education, outreach or public relations
that could assist in a successful implementation of the
project
Location
Most states will use
counties or watersheds
which is consistent with
TRACS. However, some
states are using TNC
ecoregions or
physiographic provinces.
Although County and Watershed are the most common
spatial units being used by states for SWAPs and are the
units endorsed by TRACS, some actions will require more
specific location information and others may be more
appropriately tied to ecoregions or physiography. Aside
from the habitat type, descriptions of where actions take
place may include specific locations around the state,
specific sites within a smaller locale, or any other
geographical designation appropriate to the action. If
the action requires monitoring, this description may
complement the use of a standard protocol by defining
the sampling strategy in a spatial context.
Detailed
Strategy
A detailed description of
the action, how it will
result in the desired
effects, how project
success will be measured
and assessed, and plans
for adaptive management
Actions that are ready for implementation may have
very developed ideas for accomplishing the objective of
the action. Compared to the strategy described above,
this is a much more detailed explanation of how the
action will be implemented. In cases where actions are
not so well developed, this element may include a
couple alternatives for implementation.
The hypothesis explaining how the proposed action will
impact the target by mitigating the threat would ideally
be presented in the form of a results chain (See
Background and Rationale, below) or theory of change.
Wildlife Action Plans are called upon to identify how
action results will be monitored so indicators of the
impact on the target should be identified along with
adaptive management strategies which might be used to
improve the results of the action. Monitoring protocols
may be identified by reference to standard protocols or
development of specific monitoring plans. (Both of these
address Element 5).
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 39
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 40
Table 9. A subset of TRACS action drivers complements the IUCN threat list to provide a
complete set. “Resource Threats” are included in the TRACS action drivers but are redundant
with IUCN threats and not specific enough and have been omitted from the following list.
Official TRACS resources (found at https://tracs.fws.gov/wiki/ in the Classroom Handouts
Space) should be used as a reference, this table is provided only as an example.
Level 1
Resource
Management
Needs
Level 2
Resource information
collection needs
Management decision
needs
Training needs
Public access needs
Recreation Needs
Utilization needs
Education Needs
Education /
Outreach Needs
Outreach Needs
Administrative
Needs
Infrastructure Needs
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Level 3
Lack of initial baseline inventory
Lack of up-to-date existing information
Need to answer research question
Need to develop new technique
Need to provide technical assistance
Need to conduct environmental reviews
Lack of fish, wildlife and/or habitat planning
Need for more and/or improved training in outdoor
recreation methods
Need to improve safety/ethics in outdoor recreation
Need for more public access to areas or facilities for
outdoor recreation
Lack of maintenance/improvements on areas or facilities
for outdoor recreation
Lack of information on how fish and wildlife resources
are utilized
Lack of information on how outdoor recreation areas
and facilities are utilized
Lack of information on locations of fish and wildlife
resources and public access areas and facilities
Need to maintain or increase recruitment and/or
retention of outdoor recreationalists
Need to maintain or increase supply of fish to support
fishing.
Need for improved knowledge of fish and wildlife and
their habitats
Need to provide aquatic resources and wildlife
education facilities
Need for improved knowledge of WSFR grant programs
and their accomplishments
Need to develop and/or maintain a broad base of
support for agency goals and objectives
Need to maintain and/or increase constituent base
Need to maintain or improve fish and wildlife agency
administrative facilities
Need to maintain or improve information management
systems
Need for agency organizational planning to meet goals
and objectives
Page 41
Organizational /
program planning
needs
Need for WSFR program/subprogram planning to meet
goals and objectives
Coordination /
administration needs
Need for agency administrative support for effective
operations
Need for coordination for effective program/project
management
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
State Wildlife Action Plans must describe actions proposed to conserve identified species and
habitats and priorities for implementing such actions are needed to develop a plan for wildlife
conservation.
In addition to this Wildlife Action Plan requirement, the Best Practices Report recommends the
use of the IUCN Hierarchical Action Classification System (Salafsky et al. 2008). Actions are
described as “abating known threats” and involving “metrics to measure effectiveness”. An
important recommended best practice involves the prioritization of actions using decision
theory approaches that consider resource vulnerabilities but also cost, feasibility, and likelihood
of success (e.g. pg 5, 14-15).
Given the benefit of using action terminology that is largely compatible with the Wildlife TRACS
system, and the desire to clearly justify each action, the Northeast Lexicon connects actions
with threats and/or action drivers and species or habitats to show exactly how the action
contributes to state wildlife conservation.
The Best Practices Report identifies “a need for more specificity with regard to on-the-ground
actions”. During the Development of this Northeast Lexicon, S.M.A.R.T implementation goals
(Doran, 1981) were discussed as a way to improve the clarity of action descriptions in response
to the Best Practices Report’s recommendation. S.M.A.R.T. goals are Specific, Measurable,
Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Because Wildlife Action Plans are planning documents
and some proposed actions will not be ready for implementation, it may be difficult to describe
these aspects of an action – but being able to answer these questions improves the likelihood
of implementation and project success.
The action descriptors listed here were developed based on S.M.A.R.T. planning and are wellaligned with the action development process outlined in the Conservation Measures
Partnership’s Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP 2013). Steps 1 and 2 (see
figure below) are the basis of the action development process provided in the “Suggestion for
Use”. Steps 3, 4, and 5 call on information provided in the Northeast Lexicon for Elements 4
and 5.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 42
While the Northeast Lexicon does not specifically recommend any existing prioritization
method, advice from the best practices helped ensure that the Lexicon incorporated
information typically used in action prioritization. The Lexicon also generally provides the
information required for the prioritization method presented and evaluated in “Optimal
Allocation of Resources among Threatened Species: a Project Prioritization Protocol” (Joseph et
al. 2009)
Using a results chain can provide explicit documentation of the linkages between the action,
threat, threat mitigation, targets and indicators (Foundations of Success 2007):
The Strategy explains, generally, how the “Objective” of the action will be achieved. The first
outcome identifies the threat or action driver that is motivating the action. The second
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 43
outcome identifies the change in the threat, or the mitigation of the threat, that is expected to
result in the positive impact on the target or the goal. See Using Results Chains to Improve
Strategy Effectiveness: An FOS How-To Guide to learn more about creating results chains.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 44
CHAPTER 5: ELEMENT 5, MONITORING
To increase the capacity of the region to share data and to minimize the replication of work
developing monitoring plans, monitoring plans would be detailed consistently and shared
within the region as much as possible. The three distinct purposes for monitoring (assessing
project results, measuring population status and trends, and describing habitat quality) called
for in Elements 1, 2, and 4 suggest unique formats. Status assessments of species or habitats
are referred to as ‘surveys’, ‘research’ includes monitoring to understand links between species,
their habitats, and threats impacting both, and assessing the results of ‘actions’ implies a more
dynamic situation resulting from implementing a project in an attempt to mitigate a threat or
otherwise support a Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
Assessing the effectiveness of conservation actions
Monitoring plans aiming to assess project results should follow the guidance provided by the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in “Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife
Grants” (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2011). This framework is premised on the
definition of a theory of change linking the action with intermediate results, threat reduction,
and the conservation target outcomes. (This approach to action planning is also supported by
the Northeast Lexicon for Element 4.) Several effectiveness measures may be identified to
assess intermediate results, especially in the case of actions with results expected on the longterm.
Measures of success should be (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2011) (pg 9):







Linked – tied to key factors in the theory of change laid out in the results chain
Measureable – in either quantitative or qualitative terms
Precise – defined the same way by all agencies
Consistent – unlikely to change over time
Sensitive – changing proportionately in response to actual changes in the condition or
item being measured
Overarching – available to be measured at various points through the life of a project
Achievable – not onerous for states or their partners to support.
To improve consistency, the suggested measures terminology used in Wildlife TRACS should be
used to measure action outcomes.
Measuring population status and trend
Region-wide use of standard protocols would facilitate data-sharing and make possible an
assessment of population status and trend throughout the region. Standard protocols for some
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 45
species have been developed (e.g. Grassland Bird Protocol and Standard Operating
Procedures). In addition, NEAFWA has funded development of integrated, cross-jurisdictional
monitoring programs and methods for New England cottontail, wood turtle, Eastern black rail,
dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata), tidal marsh birds, and frogs. Required elements of
monitoring plans differ between species groups, between species using different habitat types,
and between monitoring programs with differing objectives. To enhance the possibility of
comparing monitoring protocols between states, monitoring protocols should identify target
species, monitoring goals (e.g. estimating abundance and trend, understanding demography,
behavior, habitat use, reproduction, etc.), the reference protocol, and contact information for
an office or individual familiar with the protocol.
Describing Habitat Quality
Monitoring programs for habitat quality may include soil, vegetation, climate monitoring or any
variable hypothesized to influence the use of a place by a species. Unlike species population
surveys which are prompted by the need for Wildlife Action Plans to describe wildlife
abundance and trend, habitat monitoring is used to explain species’ population trends (a
research action), design conservation actions in support of single or multiple species, or
measure achievement of objectives of conservation actions. Standard protocols may be useful
in developing effective, efficient habitat monitoring programs. For example, the Forest
Inventory and Analysis plot protocol measures tree species, age classes, shrub and herbaceous
cover, snags, and fuel loads – all of which characterize forests and can be used as surrogates for
wildlife habitat, not to mention assessing fire risk. The USFS Field Guide for Invasive Plant
Inventory, Monitoring, and Mapping Protocol is another example of an existing tool that could
be employed by Wildlife Action Plans when invasive plants threaten habitat quality. In general,
habitat monitoring protocols should identify the target habitat and the purpose for monitoring.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
State Wildlife Action Plan must propose plans to monitor Species of Greatest Conservation
Need (Element 1) and their habitats (Element 2), for monitoring the effectiveness of
conservation actions (Element 4), and for adapting these conservation actions to respond
appropriately to new information or changing conditions.
The Best Practices Report recognizes that “Assessing and reporting on the success of Wildlife
Action Plans as required by Element 5 is extremely challenging due to the complexity of
biological and ecological interactions, and the extended timeframes often required for
conservation benefits to become apparent.” “Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife
Grants: Final Report” (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2011) provides specific guidance
to compensate for these challenges.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 46
A strong movement throughout conservation organizations toward standardized protocols
supports the Northeast Lexicon philosophically and technically. The Best Practices Report
specifically recommends the use of standard protocols because it facilitates data integration
and provides a more complete picture of the status of wildlife across political jurisdictions and
spatial scales. These best practices also recognize the importance of monitoring to demonstrate
the effectiveness of conservation actions and documenting the long-term benefits to fish and
wildlife populations. Projects supported by Northeast Regional Conservation Needs funds, such
as The Northeast Bird Monitoring Handbook (Lambert et al. 2009) and development of regional
species monitoring protocols, provide detailed guidance for species and habitat monitoring in
the northeastern states. The National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring Program provides
a database of standard protocols (https://irma.nps.gov/App/ProtocolTracking) which may
provide a useful example for the northeast region in the future.
The exhaustive investigation of effectiveness measures published by the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2011) and slated for incorporation
in Wildlife TRACS provides a level of consistency nationwide that was seen as the bestdeveloped guidance to date. The Northeast Regional Conservation Needs project “Regional
Monitoring and Performance Framework” (Stem et al. 2008) provided earlier progress toward
the standards developed in the national guidance put forth by the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 47
CHAPTER 6: ELEMENT 6, PLAN REVIEW
The Best Practices Report provides the most current comprehensive source for Wildlife Action
Plan preparation guidance. The Best Practices Report includes valuable guidance on many topics
not incorporated in the Lexicon. Here we have highlighted important aspects as a reference and
focused on aspects of review that may be of interest in comparing State Wildlife Action Plans.
Table 10. Overview of plan review requirements.
Type of review
Comprehensive
Review
Major Revision
Date of Review
At a minimum, every
10 years. (October 1,
2015)
No deadline: a state may choose to do a major or
minor revision at any time. These revisions do
not restart the 10-year clock for comprehensive
review.
Summary of Changes
A tabular summary of any changes made as a result of any revision, and
where those changes can be found is needed.
Explanation of No
Change
Document and explain
why no changes were
necessary after review,
and describe the
process used to make
that determination
including public review
Web access to Plan
Wildlife Action Plans are not required to be posted online however most
states do post them. A regional website listing these links would be a
valuable resource for regional conservation organizations and other states.
In addition, online locations for data sources, partner organizations, and
any supporting information should be listed.
Public Review
Public Review is
required (Element 7&8)
for the entire Wildlife
Action Plan.
Documentation of
Public Review
Document specific roles and measures of success for conservation partner
teams that contribute information and complete tasks. Provide
mechanisms for conservation partner engagement and provide regular
updates (e.g. crosswalks, online comment retention)
Taxa experts
For key taxa or other scientific questions outside the expertise of state
staff, outside partners (e.g. taxa-based or targeted professional societies,
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Minor Revision
There is no explanation needed for any sections
of the document that remain unchanged after
major or minor revisions.
Public Review is
required (Element
7&8) only for portions
of the plan under
revision.
Public Review is not
required.
Page 48
conservation organizations, other agencies with authority, or universities)
should be engaged to develop assessments of conservation need, habitat
use, threats, actions, or monitoring plans.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
State Wildlife Action Plan Requirements include the need to describe procedures to review the
plan at intervals not to exceed ten years.
States should refer to the Best Practices Report for additional requirements and detailed
suggestions for implementing comprehensive review and major or minor revision.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 49
CHAPTER 7: ELEMENT 7 AND 8, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is the general, uninvolved public and, for the purposes of Wildlife Action Plan
communications, the goal is to inform them of the process and results through standard media
outlets.
Stakeholders are interested or affected groups or individuals and the goal is to inform and
involve them in the planning and implementation processes.
Partners are collaborators and the goal is to involve and engage them in the planning and
implementation processes and inform them of progress. Wildlife Action Plans should list any
formalized partnerships.
Partners usually include federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as private
conservation organizations, and other parties. The following are examples of these partners:
Governmental:




Federal agencies (e.g. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, US Department of
Agriculture, US National Park Service, US Natural Resource Conservation Service, and
any other federal agency managing natural resource within a state.)
Tribal Nations
State agencies (e.g. Departments of Transportation, Parks, Forests, Planning, and any
other state agency affecting natural resources)
Local municipalities (counties, townships or other municipal designation)
Non-governmental organizations:




Non-Profit Conservation Organizations (Local, State, Regional, National)
Recreational Organizations (Local, State, Regional, National)
Scientific Societies and Institutions
Academic Institutions
Committees: List committees and members. Consider needed skills, knowledge, and authority in
composing committees. An example of an advisory committee charter with roles and
responsibilities from Pennsylvania is provided in Appendix C.
Communications Plan: Identify key constituent groups and audiences. Set goals for each. Develop
outreach strategies and vehicles for receiving input from these groups. Ask partners to help with
outreach by relaying information and requests for comment to their constituents. Link the
Wildlife Action Plan to established community values. (See Appendix C for an example
communications plan matrix to identify audiences and outreach methods based on Bleicher.)
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 50
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
State Wildlife Action Plan requirements include a plan for coordinating the development,
implementation, review, and revision of the plan with federal, state, and local agencies and
Indian tribes that manage significant land and water areas within the state or administer
programs that significantly affect the conservation of identified species and habitats.
In addition, broad public participation is an essential element of developing and implementing
these plans, the projects that are carried out while these plans are developed and the species in
greatest need of conservation.
States may find useful guidance in the USFWS Human Dimensions team and the Cornell
University Department of Natural Resources Human Dimensions Research Unit.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 51
SECTION III: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation
The Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical
Committee should continue to work toward development of a regional web-accessible
database to house individual state’s Wildlife Action Plan content. The completed Lexicon forms
the foundation of a regional database that will facilitate the sharing of information between
states. Such a database will help states share information on priority species, known threats for
these species and needed actions to address these threats – the required elements of State
Wildlife Action Plans. A Northeast State Wildlife Action Plan database will:
1. Enhance consistency of information for species including taxonomy and
nomenclature, conservation status in state, national and global systems, and
literature references, preventing each state from having to individually compile this
information;
2. Facilitate access to northeast State Wildlife Action Plans for state agencies, federal
agencies, conservation partners, legislators and the public;
3. Facilitate more effective and efficient collaboration within and between NEAFWA
states;
4. Improve accuracy of data transfers between states;
5. Assist NEAFWA in prioritizing regional conservation needs, focused on common
threats across state lines.
Next Steps
Implement the common lexicon through the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan revision process
and refine language as needed.
Those participating in the development of State Wildlife Action Plans are encouraged to use this
lexicon during their congressionally required comprehensive review and revision and assist in
refining the language and processes as needed. Through use of the lexicon such refinements
may be prompted as approaches are discovered that meet the needs with less work effort,
components that work better for prioritization processes, or alternative terminology that
increases the compatibility of the Northeast Lexicon with related systems nationwide.
Form a Northeast Lexicon Working Group comprised of Northeast Wildlife Diversity Program
Managers and State Wildlife Action Plan Coordinators.
Achieving the ultimate vision of a web-accessible database involves several more steps, yet it
can be accomplished in a relatively short timeframe given the work accomplished to date
through this project. The Lexicon outlines the data content, but the database will need an
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 52
intuitive user interface, a potentially complicated network of relationships between elements,
and a management system for quality control and updating data. A working group representing
the northeast state agencies (Wildlife Action Plan Coordinators, Data Managers and other staff
as appropriate), USFWS LCC and Region 5, and key NGO partners should be convened to
advance this discussion, leading to development of a pilot database application.
Develop a Northeast State Wildlife Action Plan database application
The Northeast Lexicon Working Group and a database developer should convene to work
through development steps including:
1. Define the key/priority functions of the database application (mostly done)
2. Determine the scope of the database to meet the key functions (mostly done)
3. Trial implementation of the Lexicon, with coordination and technical assistance, during
Wildlife Action Plan revisions (2013-2014)
4. Develop a database application (2014)
5. Test the database (2015)
6. Refine the database as needed (2015)
7. Launch the database application (2016)
Work with the Northeast Conservation Information and Education Association to refine
terminology related to outreach for incorporation in a toolkit to support states in their State
Wildlife Action Plan revision and implementation.
The support of partners, stakeholders, and the public is essential to both the revision process
and to the implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans. While states may differ in the
composition of these audiences, the approaches used to communicate with each of them will
be similar. Wildlife Action Planners anticipate using a combination of media such as websites,
press releases, public events, and focused meetings to engage partners, stakeholders, and the
public. The toolkit will encourage the use of common terms and shared outreach processes and
methods for regional outreach consistency and effectiveness.
Conclusion
This effort has been a productive exercise in adaptive management that has reflected the
evolving needs of the states and their partners in the development of the State Wildlife Action
Plan revisions. State Wildlife Action Plans have been criticized for their lack of consistency in
terminology that would allow wildlife managers, land managers and conservation partners to
effectively and efficiently compare conservation priorities across state borders, thereby
advancing landscape-scale conservation for Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The
Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee had a vision to address this
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 53
shortcoming – develop a common language for State Wildlife Action Plan elements to allow the
thirteen states and District of Columbia to ‘roll-up’ state-level priorities within a searchable
framework to inform regional priorities. The foundation for the database was built through this
Northeast Lexicon project. This unprecedented collaboration is nationally regarded as a model
for effective landscape-scale conservation.
The Lexicon serves as a communication and coordination tool. By constructing cohesive sets of
components to meet the requirements for each Wildlife Action Plan element and adopting
terminology for each, the Northeast Lexicon facilitates the intra- and inter-state coordination
needed to manage wildlife and their habitats with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. It
facilitates translation between State Wildlife Action Plans, enables a regional context, and a
formal structure through which states can learn from each other to integrate new planning
resources and improve planning processes. These benefits will be maximized while states
implement the Lexicon during the 2015 Wildlife Action Plan revision process.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 54
SECTION IV: REFERENCES
Akçakaya, H. R., S. Ferson, M. A. Burgman, D. A. Keith, G. M. Mace, and C. R. Todd. 2000. Making
Consistent IUCN Classifications under Uncertainty. Conservation Biology 14:1001–1013.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Teaming With Wildlife Committee, State Wildlife Action
Plan (SWAP) Best Practices Working Group. 2012. Best Practices for State Wildlife Action
Plans -- Voluntary Guidance to States for Revision and Implementation. Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2011. Measuring the Effectiveness of State Wildlife
Grants: Final Report. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
CMP. 2013. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. The Conservation Measures
Partnership.
Doran, G.T. 1981. There's a SMART way to write management's goals and objectives.
Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce, Justice, State, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 2000.
codified at U.S. Code 16 (2000) 669(c).
Foundations of Success. 2007. Using Results Chains to Improve Strategy Effectiveness: An FOS
How-To Guide. Foundations of Success, Bethesda, Maryland.
Gawler, S. C. 2008. Northeastern Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Classification. Report to the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on behalf of the Northeast Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. NatureServe,
Boston, MA.
IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2013. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List
Categories and Criteria. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee.
<http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf>.
Joseph, L. N., R. F. Maloney, and H. P. Possingham. 2009. Optimal allocation of resources among
threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation biology 23:328–338.
Lambert, J. D., T. P. Hodgman, E. J. Laurent, G. L. Brewer, M. J. Iliff, and R. Dettmers. 2009. The
Northeast bird monitoring handbook. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA.
<http://sfymkuy.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/special_reports/NEBM-handbook.pdf>.
Accessed 18 Oct 2013.
Lerner, J., B. Cochran, and J. Michalak. 2006. Conservation Across the Landscape: A Review of the
State Wildlife Action Plans. <http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=790656>. Accessed 30 Aug
2013.
Master, L. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow,
A. Teucher, and A. Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors
for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
Miller, A. F. and J. A. Cunningham. "How to avoid costly job mismatches" Management Review
70.
Naidoo, R., A. Balmford, P. J. Ferraro, S. Polasky, T. H. Ricketts, and M. Rouget. 2006. Integrating
economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:681–687.
Olivero, A. P., and M. G. Anderson. 2008. Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System. The
Nature Conservancy in collaboration with the Northeast Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, Boston, MA.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 55
Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, J. Ervin, T. Boucher, and W. Ostlie. 2003. Conventions for Defining, Naming,
Measuring, Combining, and Mapping Threats in Conservation: An Initial Proposal for a
Standard System.
Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A. J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S. H. M. Butchart, B.
Collen, N. Cox, L. L. Master, S. O’connor, and D. Wilkie. 2008. A Standard Lexicon for
Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation
Biology 22:897–911.
Stem, C., V. Swaminathan, N. Salafsky, T. Tomajer, and Kart, Jon. 2008. Monitoring the
Conservation of Fish and Wildlife in the Northeast: A Report on the Monitoring and
Performance Reporting Framework for the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Regional Conservation Needs Grant Final Report, Foundations of Success.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 56
SECTION V: APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: JUNE 2013 LITERATURE REVIEW
This report was prepared for the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee by Stephanie Egger
through Terwilliger Consulting, Inc..
Synthesizing and Summarizing Conservation Decision Tools for State Wildlife Action Plans (Final June, 2013)
A State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) database tool is envisioned by the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity
Technical Committee (NEFWDT) to be a tool primarily for delivery of SWAPs, and secondarily for development of
plans. Language and consistent operational definitions for important terms (e.g. threats, conservation actions,
habitats), and the agreement to the use of those terms and their operational definitions, are needed for species of
greatest conservation need (SGCN). The following will examine the similarities and differences between the
agreed-to terms (per Philadelphia meeting) of the Northeast (NE) Region Draft “lexicon” and other similar efforts
undertaken, developed and published by conservation organizations and within peer-reviewed literature. This
literature review report strives to contribute to advancing common agreement on terms and definitions.
Threats assessment for SGCN
Preliminary terms were chosen by NEFWDT to describe threat assessment and include Spatial Extent, Intensity,
Reversibility, Likelihood of Impact and Occurrence, Cumulative and Compounding, Immediacy, Duration, and
Persistence. These terms were then compared with terminology for threats found through the literature search
(Table 1). The same or analogous terms were found for Spatial Extent (scope), Intensity (severity), Reversibility
(irreversibility), Likelihood of Impact and Occurrence (probability), and Immediacy (urgency). Further details
regarding the definition of the terminology and scoring/ranking criteria are described below and also included in
Appendix A. For a regional approach any combination of these threat criteria can be used to identify the dominant,
regional threats for a given ecoregion. Rationalization for conducting a regional approach of threats will only be
increased as more terms are considered in an assessment (Wisdom et al. 2003).
Spatial Extent
The NE Draft Lexicon defines Spatial Extent as the percentage of threat to the applicable area - distribution of
threat within a state (spp, habitat or threat. However, the term scope was used more often by conservation
organizations and throughout the literature rather than Spatial Extent. Earlier versions of threat assessment by
organization used the term extent such in TNC Southeastern Division (2003) and WWF (Ervin 2002) or other terms
such as proportion of the area/area have also been used (WCS Living Landscapes and Salafsky & Margoluis 1999).
Spatial Extent or pervasiveness of the threat across the ecoregion was used by Wisdom et al. (2003).
In the NE Draft Lexicon, Spatial Extent of threats is scored/ranked by percentages 76-100%, 51-75%, 26-50%, and
0-25%. NatureServe (2012) scored scope by percentages into pervasive (71-100%), large (31-70%), restricted (1130%), small (1-10%). IUCN (2102) scope categories include whole, majority, minority, and negligible, while TNC
(2007) categorizes scope into very high, high, medium, and low categories. CMP (2007) and WWF (2007) also
assumes the same categories as TNC (2007) and ranks scope by percentages similar to NatureServe (2012)
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 57
Specific Threat Variables Used by Different Systems Variables in each column are used in an analogous fashion.
Systems
Variables Used by Different Systems
NatureServe
April 2012
IUCN 2012
Scope
Severity
Scope
Severity
TNC CAP 2007
Scope
Severity
TNC’s SE Division 2003
Extent (%
targets)
Scope
(spatial)
Scope
Severity
Scope
Severity
TNC 5-S (precursor to
CAP) 2000
CMP. 2007. Open
Standards
WWF Project &
Programme Standards
2007
WWF RAPPAM 2002
Severity
Timing
(immediacy)
Contribution
Irreversibility
Contribution
Irreversibility
Severity
Permanence/
Irreversibility
Irreversibility
Permanence
Extent
Permanence
WWF Root Causes
Scope
Permanence
Ecoregional Assessments:
Standard 10. 2006
WCS Living Landscapes
Scope
Severity
Proportion
Severity
Salafsky et al. 2003
Scope
Severity
Urgency
Impact & Trend
Probability
Impact
Time
Contribution
Recovery
Time
Probability
Urgency
Reversibility
Likelihood
Timing
Bunnell et al.2009
Salafsky & Margoluis
1999
Wisdom et al. 2003
Immediacy
Area
Impact
Magnitude
Impact
Intensity
Magnitude (Scope
and Severity)
Magnitude
Urgency
Spatial
Extent
Timeframe
required
Case Study: Caribbean
Persistence
Florida WAP
Scope
Severity
Irreversibility
Draft NE Lexicon
Spatial
Extent
Intensity
Reversibility
Degree to which
they contribute
Likelihood
of Impact
and
Occurrence
Cumulative
and
Compounding
Immediacy
Duration
Persistence
Page 58
very high (71-100%), high (31–70%), medium (11–30%) and low (1-10%). The Ecoregional Assessment and
Biodiversity Vision Toolbox (2006) categorizes scope of threats and their severity to the target occurrences and areas
as widespread (>50% are affected by the threat), common (10-50%), and limited (<10%). Salafsky et al. (2003) rated
scope much differently and subdivided scope into scope (spatial) and scope (percentage of targets): Scope (spatial)
is defined as the area of the project site (or target occurrence) affected by a threat within 10 years (4 = throughout
(>50%), 3 = widespread (15 – 50%), 2 = scattered (5 – 15%), 1 = localized (< 5%)). Scope (percentage of targets) is
defined as the number of target occurrences affected by a threat within 10 years (4 = most or all (>50%), 3 = many
(25 – 50%), 2 = some (5 – 25%), 1 = few (< 5%)).
Intensity
The NE Draft Lexicon defines Intensity similar to the way others define severity of threat. The term severity was used
more often by conservation organizations and throughout the literature than Intensity. Other than in the NE Draft
Lexicon, the term Intensity was only used in Salafsky and Margoluis 1999.
NatureServe (2012) and others WAPS (e.g. Florida Wildlife Conservation Strategy ) do not use the past threats to
describe threat impact, considering only present and future threats, whereas IUCN allows for past, ongoing, or
future. NatureServe, IUCN, CMP, TNC, WWF all use a similar time frame for assessing the severity of threats either
within a 10-year window or three species generation time frame whichever is longer (not to exceed 100 years).
However, TNC (2000, 2007) also measures severity as the level of damage to the conservation target that can
reasonably be expected within 10 years under current circumstances. TNC (2007) makes note that some threats,
such as climate change or invasive species may not fully express themselves over a 10-year time frame. To this end,
practitioners may wish to consider a longer time horizon for some threats if appropriate but should be sure to
document their decisions. Similar effort such as Florida WAP (2005) and Salafsky et al (2003) measure the degree
to which a threat has an impact on the viability/integrity of targets within the project area within 10 years only.
In the NE Draft Lexicon, the proposed categories for scoring/ranking the severity of threats are high, medium and
low; and are similar to TNC (2007) and CMP (2007) that measures very high, high, medium, and low. IUCN categories
for severity include very rapid, rapid, slow, and negligible (IUCN 2012). CMP (2007) and WWF (2007) scored severity
by percentages and similar category terms: Very High (71–100%), High (31–70%), Medium (11–30%), and Low (1–
10%). NatureServe (2012) is also scored by percentages, but by different category terms: extreme (71–100%), serious
(31–70%), moderate (11–30%), slight (1–10%). Salafsky et al (2003) rated severity much differently (4 = serious
damage or loss, 3 = significant damage, 2 = moderate damage, 1 = little or no damage).
Reversibility
The NE Draft Lexicon defines Reversibility as the degree to which the impact of the threat is reversible. Reversibility
was used by different conservation organization and the literature as well as the terms irreversibility and
permanence.
The NE Draft Lexicon scores Reversibility with a yes/no option. CMP (2007) and WWF (2007) ranks/score
permanence (irreversibility) as very high - the effects of the threat cannot be reversed, it is very unlikely the target
can be restored, and/or it would take more than 100 years to achieve this; high - the effects of the threat can
technically be reversed and the target restored, but it is not practically affordable and/or it would take 21–100 years
to achieve this; medium - the effects of the threat can be reversed and the target restored with a reasonable
commitment of resources and/or within 6–20 years; and low- the effects of the threat are easily reversible and the
target can be easily restored at a relatively low cost and/or within 0–5 years.
While Salafsky et al. (2003) scored/ranked Reversibility numerically: 4 = irreversible e.g., extinction, 3 = reversible
with difficulty, 2 = reversible with some difficulty and 1 = easily reversible.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 59
Likelihood of Impact and Occurrence
The NE Draft Lexicon uses similar terms to those found in the literature, likelihood and probability, but was only seen
in Salafsky et al. (2003), WWF (2002), and WCS (2002). The NE Draft Lexicon scored Likelihood of Impact and
Occurrence as high, medium, low, and none. Salafsky et al. (2003) score/ranked likelihood as the probability that a
threat will occur within the next 10 years numerically: 4 = existing threat (100%), 3 = high probability (50-99%), 2 =
moderate probability (10-49%) and 1 = low probability (0-9%).
Cumulative and Compounding
No similar terms or scoring/ranking criteria was found during this literature search.
**Internal note: Do we need to revisit whether to should include Cumulative and Compounding?
Immediacy
The NE Draft Lexicon defines Immediacy as the temporal scale of the threat. Other interchangeable terms such as
urgency (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999, WCS 2002, CMP 2007) and timing (Salafsky et al. 2003 and Ecoregional
Assessment and Biodiversity Vision Toolbox 2006,) as well as immediacy (Bunnell et al. 2009 and NatureServe 2012)
were found during the literature search.
The NE Draft Lexicon scored Immediacy as long term, near term, and now, which is similar to NatureServe (2012)
and Salafsky et al. (2003). NatureServe (2012) scores timing (Immediacy) as high (continuing), moderate (could
happen in the short term), low (could happen in the long term), and insignificant/negligible (only in the past and
unlikely to return). This scoring was based on Birdlife International and draft proposed IUCN-CMP (and NatureServe)
scoring of threat timing. Salafsky et al. (2003) defined timing as the time until a threat will start having impact on
targets and scored it numerically: 4 = current (< 1 year), 3 = imminent (1-3 years), 2 = near-term (3-10 years), and 1
= long-term (> 10 years). Bunnell et al. (2009) scored Immediacy of the threat as high, medium and low.
Duration
The NE Draft Lexicon scored Duration as less than a year, 1–5 years, 6–10 years, or greater than 10 years. One term
found during the literature search is timeframe required (to implement effective treatments across the ecoregion);
although no scoring was available (Wisdom et. al 2003). No terms analogous to Duration were found.
**Internal note: Does this mean we should revisit inclusion of Duration?
Persistence
The NE Draft Lexicon defines Persistence as the “degree to which the cause (threat) is persistent over time in the
absence of action” and scored it as inevitable, highly likely, probable, unlikely, and none. In this search of the
literature, only one source was found that used Persistence (Case Study 2006). This use of “persistence” was not
analogous to that defined in the NE Draft Lexicon as it referred to the persistence of the target as opposed to the
threat, i.e., Persistence was defined as “the degree to which a particular habitat, community or population will tend
to retain its present status should the current level of human pressure on the system remain unchanged. Persistence
was scored/ranked as highest, high, moderate, low, and unknown (Case Study 2006).
Threat terms used by others with no analogous term in the NE Draft Lexicon
Contribution
TNC (2000, 2007) similarly define contribution as the expected contribution of the source, acting alone, to the full
expression of a stress (as determined in the stress assessment) under current circumstances (i.e., given the
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 60
continuation of the existing management/conservation situation). TNC (2007) scored/ranked contribution as very
high - the source is a very large contributor of the particular stress; high - the source is a large contributor of the
particular stress; medium - the source is a moderate contributor of the particular stress; and low - the source is a
low contributor of the particular stress. Salafsky et al. 2003 also include contribution as a threat assessment term,
defining it as the degree to which a threat causes multiple and cascading threats and/or has widespread ecological
impact, scoring it numerically as 4 = very high, 3 = high, 2 = moderate, and 1 = low.
Impact/Magnitude
NatureServe (2012) defined threat impact (or magnitude) as the degree to which a species or ecosystem is observed,
inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in the area of interest. The impact of a threat is based
on the interaction between assigned scope and severity values, and includes categories of very high (75% declines),
high (40%), medium (15%) and low (3%). Threat impact is calculated considering only present and future threats.
IUCN (2012) has a similar definition and scoring. Threat impact scores are a measure between scope and severity
values and include categories of high impact, medium impact, low impact, and negligible/no impact (IUCN 2012).
However, WWF (Ervin 2002) defined impact differently as “the degree, either directly or indirectly, to which the
threat affects overall protected area resources.”
Literature Cited:
Baldwin, R.F. and P.G. deMaynadier. 2009. Assessing threats to pool-breeding amphibian habitat in an urbanizing
landscape. Biological Conservation 142: 1628–1638.
Bunnell , F.L., D.F. Fraser, and A.P. Harcombe. 2009. Increasing Effectiveness of Conservation Decisions: A System
and its Application. Natural Areas Journal 29 (1): 79-90.
CMP. 2007. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. Conservation Measures Partnership.
Ecoregional Assessment and Biodiversity Vision Toolbox. October 2006. Standard 10.
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/era/standards/std_10
Accessed 2013.
Ecoregional Assessment and Biodiversity Vision Toolbox. February 2006. Case Study: Assessment of Threats to the
Marine Biodiversity of the Caribbean using Expert Workshops. 7 pp.
Ervin, J. 2002. WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology.
WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative. Florida’s
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 540 pp.
IUCN.
December
2012.
Threat
Classification
Scheme
Version
3.2.
Accessed
2013.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/Dec_2012_Guidance_Threats_Classification_Scheme.pdf
Master, L. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A.
Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Salafsky, N. and R. Margoluis. 1999. Threat reduction assessment: A practical and cost-effective approach to
evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13: 1830-841.
Salafsky N., Salzer, D., Ervin, J., Boucher, T., and W. Ostlie. 2003. Conventions for Defining, Naming, Measuring,
Combining, and Mapping Threats in Conservation An Initial Proposal for a Standard System (Draft Version) 35 pp.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 61
Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A.J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S. H.M. Butchart, B.Collen, and N. Cox. 2008.
A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation
Biology. 15 pp.
TNC. 2000. The Five-S Framework for Site Conservation: A Practitioner’s Handbook for Site Conservation Planning
and Measuring Conservation Success, Volume I, Second Edition. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
TNC Southeastern Division. 2003. Process to Sequence Conservation Actions in the Southeast Division. The Nature
Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
TNC. 2007. Guidance for Step 4: Identify Critical Threats in Conservation Action Planning Handbook (CAP). The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
WCS. 2002. Using conceptual models to set conservation priorities. Living Landscapes Bulletin 5: 1-4.
Wisdom, M. J., M. M. Rowland, L. H. Suring, L. Schueck, C. Wolff Meinke, B. C. Wales, and S. T. Knick. 2003.
Procedures for regional assessment of habitats for species of conservation concern in the sagebrush ecosystem.
March 2003 Report, Version 1, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, Oregon. 153 pp.
WWF. July 2007. Resources for Implementing the WWF Project & Programme Standards Step 1.4 Define: Threat
Ranking. 11 pp.
Conservation Actions assessment for SGCN
Preliminary terms were chosen by NEFWDT to describe conservation action assessment and include Feasibility,
Effectiveness, Funding Availability, Capacity Internal and External, Immediacy, Sequencing, Support for Action,
Duration, and Cost Estimate. These terms were then compared with terminology for conservation action assessment
found through the literature search (Table 2). The same or analogous terms were found for Feasibility (probability
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 62
Table 2. Specific Conservation Action Variables Used by Different Systems Variables in each column are used in an analogous fashion.
Systems
Variables Used by Different Systems
NatureServe
April 2012
Probability of Success
Availability of
Funds
IUCN 2012
Probability of success
Availability of
Funds
TNC CAP 2007
Feasibility
 Lead individual and
institution
 Ability to motivate
key constituencies
 Ease of
implementation
TNC Ecoregional Status
Measures
Version 1.0 2007
TNC Southern U.S.
Regional Office 2006
Intent
Feasibility
Benefits?
 Scope and scale of
outcome
 Contribution
 Duration
 Leverage
Duration
(subhead of
Benefits)
Effective Management
Potential
Tenure
Leverage
TNC 5-S (precursor to
CAP) 2003
TNC
Landscape Practioners
Handbook
2003
CMP. 2007. Open
Standards
NC WAP Chapter 6
Synthesis of
Conservation Priorities
Personnel to
carry out such
actions
&
Legal
frameworks
Personnel to
carry out such
actions
&
Legal
frameworks
Funding
Adequate Funding
Feasibility
 Lead individual and
institution
 Ability to motivate
key constituencies
 Ease of
implementation
Benefit?
 Threat Abatement
 Viability
Enhancement
 Contribution
 Duration
 Leverage
Feasibility
Potential Impact
Feasibility (cost/
benefits analysis)
Benefit
Funding
Cost
 One time
cost
 Annual
costs
 Staff time
 Number
of years
Presence of
Support in Key
Agencies &
Partners/
AND
Stakeholder
Support/
Opportunity
Project
Leadership and
Support
Leadership and
Support
Strategic Approach
Community &
Constituency
Support
Duration
(subhead of
Benefits)
AND
Legal
Framework
Funding
Partnerships/
Opportunity
Page 63
Cost
Georgia WAP
Probability of Success
Florida WAP
Feasibility
Davis et al. 2003
Feasibility
Bunnell et al.2009
Feasibility
Draft NE Lexicon
Feasibility
Providing Multiple
Benefits for High Priority
Species/Habitats
&
Overall Importance
Benefit
Addressing
Un(der)funded
Needs
Timeliness or
Urgency
Connections with
Other Conservation
Actions
Building Public
Support
Sequencing (not
included but
mentioned as
important)
Cost
Flexibility
(engaging
stakeholders)
Effectiveness
Funding
Availability
Capacity
Internal and
External
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Immediacy
Sequencing
Support
For
Action
Duration
Page 64
Cost
Estimate
of success), Effectiveness (benefit), Funding Availability, Capacity Internal and External (leadership and support &
legal framework), Support for Action (stakeholder support), Duration, and Cost Estimate. Further details regarding
the definition of the terminology and scoring/ranking criteria are described below and also included in Appendix B.
Specific conservation action variables used by different systems were compared in an analogous fashion.
Feasibility
The NE Draft Lexicon defined Feasibility as conservation action that is capable of being done or carried out; capable
of being used or dealt with successfully; reasonable, likely. Feasibility was a common term used to evaluate
conservation actions found within the literature (Sutter and Szell 2006, TNC 2003 and 2007, CMP 2007, NC WAP
2005, FL WAP 2005, Davis et al. 2003, Bunnell et al. 2009). TNC (2006) elaborated on this definition as a measure of
how likely conservation success (based on conservation of the majority of conservation targets by implementation
of priority strategies) can be obtained at a conservation area. Further, Feasibility is a combination of the ease of
implementation of the project (for example, logistics, number of landowners) and the ecological integrity of the site
(TNC 2006). TNC (2007) emphasizes that overall Feasibility of a strategic action is based on three factors: Lead
individual and institution, the ability to motivate key constituencies, and the ease of implementation. NC and Florida
WAPS more simply define Feasibility as a cost/benefit analysis and the ease of implementation, respectively. Bunnell
et al. 2009 adds that Feasibility has little relation to status or risk, but is critical in planning and establishing priorities.
NatureServe (2012), IUCN (2012), and the Georgia WAP (2005) used a different term, probability of success. The
Georgia WAP (2005) defines probability of success as the conservation action is likely to succeed because it employs
tested methodologies, has strong support from stakeholders, and has clearly identified and readily achievable
objectives.
The NE Draft Lexicon scored/ranked Feasibility as 1 (low capacity for being done/carried out) to 3 (high capacity for
being done/carried out. TNC (2003) did score/rank three factors that contribute to Feasibility from very high, high,
medium, and low for lead individual and institution, the ability to motivate key constituencies, and the ease of
implementation. CMP (2007) also scores/ranks Feasibility on a similar scale (very high to low) and Bunnell et al.
(2009) high, medium, and low.
Effectiveness
The NE Draft Lexicon defines Effectiveness as producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect. Only TNC (2007) used
a similar term, effective management potential which was defined as the potential for an entity to be effective in
implementing activities to achieve stated protection and/or management objectives. Other analogous terms that
were used were benefit, potential impact leverage, and providing multiple benefits for high priority species/habitats
& overall importance. Benefit was further defined as scope and scale of outcome, contribution, duration and leverage
by TNC (Higgins et al. 2007). TNC (Low 2003) also further defined benefit as threat abatement, viability, and
enhancement, as well as contribution, duration, leverage. Both the North Carolina (2005) and Florida (2005) WAPS
included the term benefit in their conservation action assessments. CMP (2007) used the term potential impact and
asked the question if implemented will the strategy lead to desired changes in the situation at the project site?
The NE Draft Lexicon scores Effectiveness as 1 (low probability of having desired effect) to 3 (high probability of
having desired effect). Effective management potential was ranked by TNC (Higgins et al. 2007) as very good
(adequate likelihood, fair (inadequate likelihood) and poor (no likelihood) of activities achieving the designated
intent. CMP (2007) scoring/ranking of potential impact was very high, high, medium, and low for contributing to
meaningful threat mitigation or target restoration. TNC (Low 2003) scored the individual components under benefit
(also threat abatement, viability, enhancement, contribution, duration and leverage) on a similar scale (very high to
low). Florida WAP also ranked similarly.
Funding Availability
The NE Draft Lexicon described Funding Availability as present and ready for use; at hand; accessible; capable of
being gotten; obtainable. Several other organizations noted the importance of Funding Availability when assessing
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 65
conservation actions (e.g. NatureServe 2012, IUCN 2012, TNC 2003 and 2006). Funding may come from both private
and public sectors and be available through a variety of mechanisms and sources, such as appropriation of public
funds, contributions by donors, endowment, and other sources (Low 2003) or match opportunities (NC WAP 2005).
The NE Draft Lexicon scored/ranked Funding Availability as 3 (funding in hand), 2 (funding is available but no
earmarked), and 1 (no funding). TNC (2006) ranked funding on an ordinal scale very high, high, medium, or low and
then translated into numeric values from 1-4 (low = 1, very high =4) and funding was weighted by 2. TNC (Low 2003)
ranked funding on a similar scale, very high to low.
Capacity Internal and External
The NE Draft Lexicon described Capacity Internal and External as the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy
individual actions not the plan as a whole. NatureServe (2012) and IUCN (2012) described similar actions such as the
personnel to carry out such actions & legal frameworks similar to TNC (Low 2003) with leadership and support &
legal framework and TNC (2003) project leadership and support. Low (2003) describes the necessary staff leadership,
multidisciplinary team (could be onsite or partner organizations), and institutional leadership (some combination of
institutions is providing leadership for developing and implementing conservation strategies at the project area).
Legal framework includes the existence of an appropriate framework of protection tools and policy instruments that
can be deployed to secure enduring conservation results at the project area (Low 2003).
The NE Draft Lexicon separate capacity into 2 questions – internal and external and ranked each as 3 (all capacity to
perform is in place), 2 (some, but inadequate), and 1 (no capacity). TNC (Low 2003) ranks leadership and support &
legal framework on a scale of very high, high, medium, and low.
Immediacy
The NE Draft Lexicon defined Immediacy as when something is important or urgent because it relates to a situation
that is happening now. Similarly, the Georgia WAP (2005) used the terms timeliness or urgency as the conservation
action that addresses a problem that is particularly urgent. If this specific action is not implemented or continued in
the next ten years, the state will experience a significant loss of biological diversity or habitat quality. No other
sources in the literature search produced the term Immediacy or an analogous term.
The NE Draft Lexicon ranked Immediacy at 3 (now), 2 (near term), and 1 (long term).
Sequencing
The NE Draft Lexicon defined Sequencing as an action that is one of several that must be done in some order. In the
Florida WAP (2005) Sequencing was not included, but mentioned as an important conservation action to consider.
In the Georgia WAP (2005) connections with other conservation actions serves as a critical component that enables
or facilitates one to several other important conservation measures. Without this component, other efforts will be
crippled or made ineffectual. TNC (2003) offered a strategic approach term. No other literature sources from this
search yielded terms analogous to “sequencing.”
The NE Draft Lexicon ranks Sequencing as 1 (step 3 or more), 2 (step 2), 3 (first step of 2 or more), or 4 only step in
sequence and will add a factor of dependency of yes/no.
Support for Action
In the NE Draft Lexicon Support for Action was defined as social/political/landowner ability to approve of an action
and help it to be successful. TNC (2006) suggested the presence of support in key agencies/partners and stakeholder
support/opportunity as well community & constituency support (TNC (Low 2003)) as conservation action assessment
terms similar to Support for Action. NC WAP (2005) and Georgia WAP (2005) offer partnerships/opportunity and
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 66
building public support, respectively, as similar conservation assessment terms. Davis et al. 2003 also contributed
the flexibility (engaging stakeholders).
The NE Draft Lexicon ranks Support for Action as 1 (no support) to 3 or 5 (very high support).
TNC (2006) ranked presence of support in key agencies/partners and policy and constituency (stakeholder) support
on an ordinal scale (low, medium, high, or very high) for assessing relative conservation opportunities. Both presence
of key agencies/partners and policy and constituency (stakeholder) support were weighted by 1.5. Similarly, TNC
(Low 2003) ranked community & constituency support as very high, high, medium, and low.
Duration
Duration is another term that the NE Draft Lexicon intends to include. In both TNC (2006) and TNC (Low 2003)
Duration was included as a subheading under benefits and subsequently placed in the similar column as Effectiveness
for the NE Draft Lexicon Terminology). However, it could also be included as a stand-alone term as well. TNC (Higgins
et al. 2007) includes the term tenure defined as the duration of the commitment to the protection and/or
management activities. Tenure is measured by very good (permanent) (or in perpetuity), good (long-term
commitment) (25 years or greater), fair (short-term commitment) (less than 25 years) commitment, or poor (no
Commitment).
**Internal note: It is unclear whether NE Lexicon wanted “duration” to reflect the time commitment required (i.e.,
the need for sustained action over time vs. short term action). The TNC use seems to be about the likelihood of a
sustained duration i.e., the time commitment available. NE will need to be clear on this and draw the comparison
based on what we determine.
Cost Estimate
The NE Draft Lexicon defines Cost Estimate as the approximation of the cost of a program, project, or operation. The
Cost Estimate is the product of the cost estimating process. The Cost Estimate has a single total value and may have
identifiable component values. A few of the literature sources provided cost as a conservation action assessment
consideration. TNC (2007) further broke down cost as one time cost, annual costs, staff time, and number of years.
TNC (Low 2003) defined cost as cost in discretionary dollars – estimate the total cost of implementing the Strategic
Action, including staff time, in unrestricted or discretionary dollars that are available to the project. The Florida WAP
(2005) defines cost as the order of magnitude in dollars with the total cost of implementing the action estimated for
the time horizon of the action, but no longer than 10 years.
**Internal note: NE will need to be clear about how we want this term applied, annual costs? Total costs? For
duration? For no more than 10 years?
TNC (Low 2003) ranked cost as very high (total cost is $1,000,000 or more), high (total cost is $100,000 or more),
medium (total cost is $10,000 or more), and low (total cost is less than $10,000).
Literature Cited:
Bunnell , F.L., D.F. Fraser, and A.P. Harcombe. 2009. Increasing Effectiveness of Conservation Decisions: A System
and its Application. Natural Areas Journal 29(1):79-90.
CMP. 2007. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. Conservation Measures Partnership.
Davis, F.W., D.M. Stoms, et al. 2003. A framework for setting land conservation priorities using multi-criteria scoring
and an optimal fund allocation strategy, University of California, Santa Barbara, National Center for Ecological
Analysis and Synthesis: 72 pp.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 67
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative. Florida’s
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 540 pp.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division. August 2005. A Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy for Georgia. Appendix L. 202 pp.+ Appendices.
Higgins, J., R, Unnasch, and C. Supples. 2007. Ecoregional Status Measures Version 1.0 Framework and Technical
Guidance To Estimate Effective Conservation. The Nature Conservancy. 123 pp.
IUCN. 2012. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Low, G. 2003. Developing Strategies, Taking Action & Measuring Success LANDSCAPE – SCALE CONSERVATIONA
Practitioner’s Guide. The Nature Conservancy. 62 pp.
Margules, C.R., R.L. Pressey, and P.H. Williams. 2002. Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying
priority areas for conservation. Journal of Biosciences 27(4 supplement 2): 309-326.
Master, L. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A.
Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Synthesis of Conservation
Priorities Criteria to Set Conservation Priorities. Chapter 6. Raleigh, North Carolina. 12 pp.
Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, K.H. Redford, and J.G. Robinson. 2002. Improving the practice of conservation: A
conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16: 1469-1479.
Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A.J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S. H.M. Butchart, B.Collen, and N. Cox. 2008.
A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation: Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation
Biology: 15 pp.
Sutter, R.D., and C.C. Szell. 2006. Sequencing Conservation Actions Through Threat Assessments in the Southeastern
United States, The Nature Conservancy Durham, North Carolina. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-42CD. 10
pp.
TNC. 2003. The Enhanced 5-S Project Management Process: An Overview of Proposed Standards for Developing
Strategies, Taking Action, and Measuring Effectiveness and Status at Any Scale. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
Virginia. 58 pp.
TNC. 2007. Guidance for Step 4: Identify Critical Threats in Conservation Action Planning Handbook (CAP). The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 16 pp.
Identification of SGCN
Most SWAPs refer to the National and State Rank criteria as the develop SGCN list in addition to other lists from
Birds of Conservation Concern or Other approved or peer reviewed regional plans and systems including (Partners
in Flight, Bird Conservation Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, American Fisheries Society etc.). Further details
regarding the definitions of the scoring/ranking criteria are included in Appendix C.
This literature search included the Arizona SWAP, which did not base their selection of SGCN on such criteria. Arizona
SWAP notes “This vulnerability assessment did not use available national or global vulnerability rankings (e.g.,
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 68
NatureServe) because rankings based on species evaluations across their entire geographical distribution are too
coarsely scaled. Also no attempt to match rankings done previously by the Department (e.g., Wildlife of Special
Concern in Arizona, or rankings done by other agencies or entities, e.g., U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Region
Sensitive Animals list , Bureau of Land Management sensitive species list for Arizona, Birds of Conservation Concern
2008, Southwest Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) again because of issues of scale, as well as
differing management and conservation priorities across agencies, NGOs, etc. It is important to note that lists
compiled by other entities are based on other, perhaps similar or dissimilar, criteria in different geographic and
management settings, therefore the resulting vulnerability ranks herein are not meant to replace, update or
invalidate any of those lists.”
Literature Cited:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005 (Revised October 2006). The Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. 1647 pp. + Appendices.
Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Nichols, L. Master, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay,
A. Teucher, and B. Young. June 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Methodology for Assigning
Ranks. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative. Florida’s
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 540 pp.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division. August 2005. A Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy for Georgia. Appendix A. 202 pp.+ Appendices.
IUCN. (2012a). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK: IUCN. iv + 32pp.
IUCN. (2012b). Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0.
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp.
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2005. Mississippi’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.
428 pp.
Panjabi, A. O., P. J. Blancher, R. Dettmers, and K. V. Rosenberg, Version 2012. Partners in Flight Technical Series No.
3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2012.pdf
Abundance and Trends of SGCN
Florida WAP (2005) and Mississippi WAP (2005) used similar categories for describing species trends: Declining,
Stable, and Increasing. Florida WAP (2005) also adds the Unknown Category. Mississippi assigned each category a
point value for species abundance and trends. For example for measuring species: 4 points - Species endemic to
State, 3 points – State encompasses >25% of the species' range, 2 points - State encompasses 5-25% of the species’
range, and 1 point - State encompasses < 5% of the species’ range. NatureServe (2012) divides trends into long-term
and short-term and further categorized them by letter and corresponding percentage value. Further details
regarding abundance and trend of SGCN are included in Appendix D.
Literature Cited:
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2012. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012-2022. Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 69
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005 (Revised October 2006). The Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. 1647 pp. + Appendices.
BirdLife International (2004) Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. Wageningen, The Netherlands:
BirdLife International. 59 pp.
Ecoregional Assessment and Biodiversity Vision Toolbox. October 2006. Standard 9.
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/era/standards/std_9
Accessed 2013.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative. Florida’s
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 540 pp.
Master, L. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A.
Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2005. Mississippi’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.
428 pp.
Habitat Conditions for SGCN
EPA (2012) used a letter scoring system (A-D) of assessment of wetland ecosystem condition. For example an A
category would correspond with highest quality habitat - the landscape context contains largely natural habitats that
are minimally fragmented with few stressors; the size is large or above the minimum dynamic area, the vegetation
structure and composition, soils, and hydrology are functioning within natural ranges of variation; invasives and
exotics (non-natives) are present in only minor amounts, or have or minor negative impact; and many key plant and
animal indicators are present. When evaluating terrestrial habitat, the Arkansas WAP (2006) used the categories
poor level, fair level, good level, and very good level and weighted a range of measurements to assess the relative
health of associated key factors, which in turn reflect the integrity of the associated habitat. Georgia WAP (2005)
acknowledged that data on abundance and condition of habitats are not sufficient to assign quantitative scores or
values for most habitat types. Further details regarding assessing habitat condition of SGCN are included in Appendix
E.
Literature Cited:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005 (Revised October 2006). The Arkansas Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. 1647 pp. + Appendices.
Ecoregional Assessment and Biodiversity Vision Toolbox. October 2006. Standard 9.
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/era/standards/std_9
Accessed 2013.
Faber-Langendoen, D., C. Hedge, M. Kost, S. Thomas, L. Smart, R. Smyth, J. Drake, and S. Menard. 2012a. Assessment
of wetland ecosystem condition across landscape regions: A multi-metric approach. Part A. Ecological Integrity
Assessment overview and field study in Michigan and Indiana. EPA/600/R-12/021a. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative. Florida’s
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 540 pp.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division. August 2005. A Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy for Georgia. 202 pp.+ Appendices.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 70
Master, L. L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G. A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A.
Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Sample, David W., and Michael J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds - a guide for Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, PUBL-SS-925-97. 154 pp. Jamestown, ND: Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/wiscbird/index.htm
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 71
APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESULTS
Q1 Has your agency started the 2015 revision of your state’s Wildlife Action
Plan?
Answered: 15
Skipped: 0
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
80%
12
No
20%
3
Total Respondents: 15
Q2 Please indicate which state, jurisdiction, or organization this survey
represents.
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Maine
7.69%
1
New Hampshire
7.69%
1
7.69%
1
Massachusetts
15.38%
2
Rhode Island
7.69%
1
Connecticut
7.69%
1
New York
0%
0
New Jersey
7.69%
1
Pennsylvania
23.08%
3
Delaware
7.69%
1
Maryland
0%
0
West Virginia
0%
0
Virginia
7.69%
1
District of Columbia
0%
0
Other
0%
0
Vermont
Total
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
13
Page 72
#
Name/Organization
Date
1
Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
3/12/2013 10:38 AM
2
CT kt
3/10/2013 9:30 AM
3
RI kt
3/10/2013 9:15 AM
4
Pennsylvania Game Commission (birds and mammals only)
3/8/2013 6:33 PM
5
Fish and Game
3/8/2013 5:07 PM
6
Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
3/8/2013 2:18 PM
7
Game Commission
3/8/2013 11:54 AM
8
Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department
3/7/2013 3:38 PM
9
Div. of Fish and Wildlife -- Endangered and Nongame Species Program
3/7/2013 12:43 PM
10
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
3/6/2013 7:43 AM
Q3 Is your agency planning to use any of the systems below to justify your
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) list? Check all that apply.
Answered: 14
Skipped: 1
Answer Choices
Responses
92.86%
13
100%
14
71.43%
10
85.71%
12
42.86%
6
50%
7
Federal T & E
State T & E
Federal Heritage rank
State Heritage rank
IUCN
BCRs
Total Respondents: 14
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
1. State-listed "Species of Special Concern" & 2. High regional
r esponsibility (NEPARC, regional declines among fish & BBS routes, etc .)
3/12/2013 10:45 AM
2
NEPARC, RSGCN etc
3/10/2013 9:31 AM
3
NEPARC, RSGCN etc
3/10/2013 9:15 AM
4
Northeast regional priority
3/8/2013 6:36 PM
5
Northeast Taxonomic Matrix Hoc key Stick
3/8/2013 5:08 PM
6
AFS, NMFS, NEWDT C
3/8/2013 2:23 PM
7
other recognized regional and/or national taxonomic group plans
3/7/2013 12:59 PM
8
We are developing a decision model with Cornell based on the above,
plus others
3/5/2013 2:44 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 73
Q4 Information is often available to assess the distributions of species, even
though it may vary widely in quality. With the exception of a certain groups, such
as birds, there are little or no hard data about trends in abundance that could be
used to select SGCN. What is your opinion about including in our common
lexicon some qualitative terms to describe trends in abundance (check all that
apply)?
Answered: 14
Skipped: 1
Strongly
agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
Respondent
s
30.77%
4
38.46%
5
30.77%
4
0%
0
13
Birds are the only group with legitimate abundance
trend data
0%
0
28.57%
4
71.43%
10
0%
0
14
Birds are a good model of a lexicon for abundance
0%
0
61.54%
8
38.46%
5
0%
0
13
15.38%
2
69.23%
9
7.69%
1
7.69
%1
13
0%
0
38.46%
5
38.46%
5
23.08
% 3
13
Qualitative terms should NOT be used to describe
trends in
abundance
7.69%
1
15.38%
2
61.54%
8
15.38
% 2
13
Our common lexicon should NOT address abundance
7.69%
1
7.69%
1
61.54%
8
We recommend NatureServe's population/status
ranking terminology
For all SGCN we should assign "stable, increasing,
decreasing,
unknown"
For every population we should assign "stable,
increasing, decreasing,
unknown"
23.08%
3
#
Comment
Date
1
Even qualitative data can be useful when attempting to prioritize (generally
inevitable!) an array of topic s
3/12/2013 10:45 AM
2
we may not have enough data for populations or quantitative vs. qualitative
3/10/2013 9:15 AM
3
There are many ways to measure and state bird abundance
3/8/2013 6:36 PM
4
Assigning current status in a common lexicon would be appropriate but
determining trends may become problematic particularly when trend data is often
lacking or with such great uncertainty that it is unreliable.
3/8/2013 2:23 PM
5
birds are not under PFBC jurisdiction; defer to PGC. For population, it is often not
known. If abundance is known, why not use it in the lexicon?
3/7/2013 4:56 PM
6
Our common lexicon should make it possible to say that we don't always know
"the" answer. For a regional assessment we need information
3/7/2013 3:50 PM
7
For non-T &E species, it is rare for us to have enough detail to discuss population.
Although we don't like to admit it, we use Qualitative measures constantly to
justify actions. No reason not to include them within the SWAP.
3/7/2013 3:07 PM
8
There will be some difficulty in assigning status, but we should try to agree on
an approach. For "populations'" there will be issues of addressing what
comprises a "population." Will we need to understand population status to
assign status to species?
3/7/2013 12:59 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
13
Page 74
Q5 Species distributions may be described using many different spatial units.
Check all that apply to our common lexicon.
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
State, county, or town boundary
84.62%
11
Management or planning districts
46.15%
6
Watersheds
76.92%
10
Habitat patches
69.23%
9
Population points
38.46%
5
Total Respondents: 13
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
Ecoregions would be our top choice for terrestrial species. Perhaps political
units (state / county / township) could be summarized in tabular for geographic
clarity but should not be the primary spatial units.
3/12/2013 10:58 AM
2
don't have enough data on the last 2
3/10/2013 9:33 AM
3
will be data driven
3/10/2013 9:18 AM
4
Unsure of the definition of a "population point".
3/7/2013 5:17 PM
5
Biophysical regions, eco-regions
3/7/2013 4:04 PM
6
We need geospatial units that are fine enough to be descriptive and coarse
enough to buffer points and allow us to compensate for localized changes
that are problematic with point locations. We don't want to redraw the map
every two weeks. Our habitat patches can change too rapidly.
3/7/2013 3:15 PM
7
not exactly sure what is meant by "population points"
3/7/2013 1:14 PM
8
Poorly written question
3/5/2013 2:47 PM
9
Ecoregion
3/5/2013 11:39 AM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 75
Q6 Each SWAP is supposed to consider the distribution and abundance of all
“major groups” of species (taxonomic groups or guilds) when selecting SGCN.
Such data are tracked for some species by Natural Heritage programs, but in
many cases, SGCN are not tracked by any formal program. For our common
lexicon, which terms do we need to define in order to describe the data that
are available for SGCN distribution?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
We do NOT need to describe distribution data
0%
Data source
76.92%
10
Sc ale
76.92%
10
Resolution
76.92%
10
Precision
61.54%
8
Age
76.92%
10
Quality
76.92%
10
Type
76.92%
10
Contac t
69.23%
9
Link
46.15%
6
Sensitivity
84.62%
11
0
Total Respondents: 13
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
We generally screen out imprecise occurrences = not a factor if that is
generally true? Species with data sensitivity issues merit some general
discussion.
3/12/2013 10:58 AM
2
is link connectivity or web link?
3/10/2013 9:18 AM
3
Does "age"=date of a record? What is "link"? Does "quality" refer quality of
location or species identification? A "confidence" field is needed.
3/7/2013 4:04 PM
4
I checked everything, but I am not sure what this question is asking. Do we need
to define these terms or are we determining if these are fields that need to be
included in some metadata structure? Or am I misunderstanding? The system
won't let me leave this blank.
3/7/2013 3:15 PM
5
While it would be ideal to have this information for species not "tracked" by
NHP's, the degree to which we will be able to provide such information will be
very inconsistent.
3/7/2013 1:14 PM
6
Huh?
3/5/2013 2:47 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 76
Q7 Many different types of data are available to represent distributions of
SGCN. Please select all that you believe should be described in our common
lexicon.
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Element Occurrence
92.31%
12
Source Feature
69.23%
9
Presence/absence points
61.54%
8
Habitat classes
76.92%
10
Habitat patches
69.23%
9
Habitat suitability model
30.77%
4
Niche model
7.69%
1
Habitat capability model
23.08%
3
Buffer
30.77%
4
Total Respondents: 13
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
Migration / connectivity corridors are sometimes a key data type. Observation
points can be tracked in our "faunal heritage database" to promote
evaluations of species status, but we usually subset a more refined type of
data for flagging via environmental review or triggering management activity.
Modeling is generally not an acceptable alternative.
3/12/2013 10:58 AM
2
not sure any of the last 5 are available in many states but should be
included if possible
3/10/2013 9:33 AM
3
the latter 5 are likely not to be available
3/10/2013 9:18 AM
4
Confusing. We assume "class" refers to habitat type and "patch" to the habitat
where a species is found.
3/7/2013 4:04 PM
5
I checked everything but I don't understand what this question is asking me.
What will it mean if I check a box? The system won't let me leave this blank.
3/7/2013 3:15 PM
6
For those that we did not agree should be described, we would agree that
they cold be included if all we are doing is indicating their availability or
providing a link or reference.
3/7/2013 1:14 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 77
Q8 For each SGCN, we need to identify habitat associations. Do you accept a
crosswalk to the Northeast Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat Classifications as a
common standard for describing SGCN habitats?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
69.23%
9
No
0%
0
Don't know
30.77%
4
Total Respondents: 13
#
Comment required if answer is no.
Date
1
but we will use our more specific system as well
3/10/2013 9:34 AM
2
but we will use our more specific system as well
3/10/2013 9:20 AM
3
Depends upon how the crosswalks will be applied. Both classifications are
great, but uncertain of the useable scale for resource managers.
3/7/2013 5:28 PM
4
VT uses natural community classification which dovetails w/ this model
but natural communities is at a finer scale.
3/7/2013 4:05 PM
5
We need to determine if these classifications actually facilitate better
management. Other states have abandoned similarly complex models
because staff couldn't apply them. They adopted more basics systems like
the National Landcover Dataset. On a separate note, we often don't know
enough about our SGCN to talk intelligently about their habitat tolerances.
3/7/2013 3:19 PM
6
Caveat -- there still needs to be significant work done to QA/QC both habitat
classifications and their applications (mapping) and the crosswalk. We have
less concern with the classification approach than we do with the actual
data layers (mapping)
3/7/2013 1:25 PM
7
Still doesn't exist for aquatic
3/5/2013 2:49 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 78
Q9 The RCN program funded habitat classifications, habitat mapping, and the
"Geospatial Condition Analysis", which will provide relative indices of condition
for each class of habitat. The indices will be based on on available spatial data,
such as conservation status, resiliency, road density, patch size, etc. The
scores can be applied at any relative scale, such as the whole region or within
states, answering such questions as where is the highest ranked patch of pine
barrens in New Jersey? In summary, this project will define and estimate
specific parameters to describe the relative condition of each habitat class, in
each state, and across states. Do you agree that this approach will satisfy our
needs with regard to a common lexicon for habitat condition?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
30.77%
4
No
0%
0
Don't know
69.23%
9
Total Respondents: 13
#
Comment required if answer is no.
Date
1
Maine needs more info on "geospatial condition analysis" Of course,
our small patches of pine barrens are inconsequential relative to
those in NJ, but jurisdictions attempting to conserve species at risk
near range limits can't always cope with such comparisons!
3/12/2013 11:02 AM
2
its a good start
3/10/2013 9:34 AM
3
its a good start
3/10/2013 9:20 AM
4
Unclear about the scope of this question
3/7/2013 5:28 PM
5
We are not willing to adopt these systems until we have determined
their accuracy. If the habitat map does not accurately represent "on
the ground" conditions, we won't use it to make important planning
decisions.
3/7/2013 3:19 PM
6
It will be the only game in town across a regional scale, so yes.
Would like the capability to include other more local approaches
that exist now or in the future.
3/7/2013 1:25 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 79
Q10 Both NEPARC and NEFWDTC have adopted an approach to select Species of
Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) using conservation need and
responsibility as screening factors. In this approach, need was measured by
the proportion of Northeast states identifying a species as an SGCN, and
responsibility was measured by the proportion of a species distribution
occurring in the Northeast. Is your agency willing to work toward developing a
similar common practice to select SGCN?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
69.23%
9
No
30.77%
4
Total
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
13
Page 80
Q11 Above, the distribution-based "responsibility" factor is fairly objective to
measure, however "conservation need" is very inconsistently defined across
organizations. Which of the following terms would you be willing to accept as
common descriptors of the overall "conservation need" for a species,
considering the cumulative effect of all the threats that impact a species (check
ALL that apply):
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Immediacy [needs conservation now vs. later]
92.31%
12
Certainty [need is nearly certain vs. uncertain]
92.31%
12
Extent [current impacts are sustainable vs. not sustainable]
76.92%
10
Reversible [impacts may be reversed vs. irreversible]
92.31%
12
Total Respondents: 13
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
Regional endemics (and especially state endemics) may not be getting
sufficient priority & are often among the most vulnerable in diversity
programs.
3/12/2013 11:09 AM
2
might be others
3/10/2013 9:34 AM
3
we may not be able to determine this for all species
3/10/2013 9:23 AM
4
Concepts (i.e., phrases) are good, but terminology needs to be adjusted.
Example: Extent is a geographic term-use Sustainable. Response to 12: Nice
try-we want to comment anyway. Categories should provide a gradient of
responses
3/7/2013 5:46 PM
5
How does one apply "immediacy" if Action Plans/SWG are supposed
to prevent species from becoming endangered
3/7/2013 4:08 PM
6
These terms haven't been explained well enough for me to make an
informed decision about what criteria should or should not be considered.
The system wouldn't let me leave them all blank, so I checked them all,
instead.
3/7/2013 3:29 PM
7
If these terms or similar were used to determine conservation need as opposed
to using the NEPARC approach, we would be more comfortable with our
'yes' to 10 above.
3/7/2013 1:44 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 81
Q12 Please read the choices above again, and notice each term can be
represented by an "either / or" type of category, such as now/later,
certain/uncertain. Do you agree that using only 2 or 3 simple categories is a
useful approach to achieve consistent assessments of species conservation
needs across organizations?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
yes
61.54%
8
no
46.15%
6
Total Respondents: 13
Q13 The questions above describe the use of several categorical factors to
summarize the overall conservation need (or degree of threat) as a tool to help
select SGCN. Once SGCN are selected, a similar approach could be used to go
one step further and assess several categorical factors for each specific
threat that is impacting "species x". Do you agree that our common lexicon
should include terminology to define categorical factors to assess specific
threats, species by species?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
yes
84.62%
11
no
15.38%
2
Total Respondents: 13
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 82
Q14 What terms do we need to use to adequately describe key attributes of
threats? Check ALL that apply.
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Human factors
69.23%
9
Environmental factors
76.92%
10
Biological stress
61.54%
8
Scale
84.62%
11
Extent
84.62%
11
Immediacy
92.31%
12
Reversibility
92.31%
12
Total Respondents: 13
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
Duration (acute / chronic). Even scale, extent & reversibility may be
useful attributes but not if this planning is not dynamic or feedback
via adaptive management is constrained.
3/12/2013 11:09 AM
2
there might be others but not enough time to do here
3/10/2013 9:23 AM
3
Couldn't Biological Stress be an attribute of Human or Environmental
factors. Do you mean Biological Factors such as genetic or interspecific
competition?
3/7/2013 5:46 PM
4
Use Salafsky et. al. Taxonomy of Direct Threats
3/7/2013 4:08 PM
5
Category, scope, severity
3/7/2013 3:29 PM
6
As a comment to this question and 13 above, we agree that the
inclusion of such terminology would be useful, but we may not be in
a position to apply it now or in the near future.
3/7/2013 1:44 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 83
Q15 In planning, some refer to a natural resource as an "element" or a
"target;" others refer to planning processes as "elements", and still others
call the desired outcome of implementing planned actions "targets". Is your
agency willing to work toward a series of common terms (such as resource,
goal, objective, desired outcome, indicator, level) that can be used to connect
natural resources to actions and measurable outcomes, so that performance
can be tracked logically as progress toward specific results that contribute to
larger goals?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
84.62%
11
No
15.38%
2
Total
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
13
Page 84
Q16 Tell us what you think of the following as sequence of terms to link resources
to actions to results: Resource; Goal; Objective; Desired outcome; Indicator;
Level. Is each term as useful part of the sequence as a whole?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Useful
Resource
Not useful
61.54%
8
92.31%
Goal
12
92.31%
Objective
12
100%
Desired outcome
13
92.31%
Indicator
12
38.46%
Level
5
I do not understand this term
Total
0%
0
38.46%
5
13
0%
0
7.69%
1
13
0%
0
7.69%
1
13
0%
0
0%
0
13
0%
0
7.69%
1
13
15.38%
2
46.15%
6
13
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
Goal & desired outcome could be fairly similar, unless one factors more
realism! "Level" is too vague without clarification.
3/12/2013 11:20 AM
2
clarify level?
3/10/2013 9:36 AM
3
not sure what level means here
3/10/2013 9:27 AM
4
Should consider defining "indicator", "resource" & "resource". What
about "measures" as in "performance measures" that we are
required to use as part of Wildlife T RACS.
3/7/2013 6:09 PM
5
Strategies (a way to achieve an objective) and actions (the steps to
implementing a strategy)? Would that be too fine-scaled?
3/7/2013 4:12 PM
6
these terms will be useful as the definitions we apply to them and the
clarity/distinctions among them.
3/7/2013 2:37 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 85
Q17 Do you agree the following terms are useful to describe an adaptive
management framework for actions? Check ALL that apply.
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Strongly agree
Performance indicator
Start
Duration
Evaluation cycle
Data management capacity
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
23.08%
3
61.54%
8
15.38%
2
0%
0
13
7.69%
1
61.54%
8
30.77%
4
0%
0
13
15.38%
2
61.54%
8
23.08%
3
0%
0
13
23.08%
3
53.85%
7
23.08%
3
0%
0
13
0%
0
54.55%
6
45.45%
5
0%
0
11
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
"Effectiveness" was cited by some staff but may overlap with performance
indicator?
3/12/2013 11:20 AM
2
not sure what data capacity means
3/10/2013 9:36 AM
3
please clarify data mgmt capacity
3/10/2013 9:27 AM
4
It's difficult to agree or disagree without definition of the terms.
3/7/2013 6:09 PM
5
Such terms should align with Wildlife T RACS adaptive mgmt module (if there is
one).
3/7/2013 4:12 PM
6
I don't understand the term "Data management capacity" so I clicked "Disagree"
3/7/2013 3:37 PM
7
In the context of SWAPs and the level of action detail and specificity that needs to
be in SWAPs, most of these terms go "too far." They are useful for adaptive
management of projects, but SWAPs are not meant to be project plans.
3/7/2013 2:37 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 86
Q18 In SWAPs, actions are supposed to be linked to specificthreats. However,
that relationship is not always direct or obvious. Yet, in order to prescribe the right
kind of action, specific attributes of the threats addressed need to be identified.
Are the following terms useful to help describe how a particular action might
be related to or address certain threats? Rate each one.
Answered: 13
Skipped:
Threat addressed by action
Human factors addressed by action
Environmental factors addressed by action
Biological stresses addressed by action
Expected direct benefits
Expected indirect benefits
Expected change in resource status
Useful
Not useful
Total
84.62%
11
15.38%
2
13
83.33%
10
16.67%
2
12
83.33%
10
16.67%
2
12
83.33%
10
16.67%
2
12
84.62%
11
15.38%
2
13
75%
9
25%
3
12
69.23%
9
30.77%
4
13
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
All seem reasonable concepts. An implementation phase might better reveal which
are more useful than others.
3/12/2013 11:20 AM
2
If we are talking about wildlife, we should really stick to wildlife rather than a
calling it a resource.
3/8/2013 5:18 PM
3
Not sure what this is trying to address.
3/7/2013 6:09 PM
4
These sound good but we don't know if all are needed or if these are
comprehensive.
3/7/2013 4:12 PM
5
Change in threat status/level.
3/7/2013 2:37 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 87
Q19 Many organizations use the S.M.A.R.T. system to ensure that goals are
developed with enough detail to make implementation possible. If you are not
familiar with this concept, please google it. Do you agree that the common lexicon
should use a similar model, including who, what, where, when etc. to describe
actions?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
84.62%
11
No
15.38%
2
Total Respondents: 13
Q20 Do you agree it is valuable to have a common way to describe the feasibility
and efficacy of proposed conservation actions?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
yes
84.62%
11
no
15.38%
2
Total
13
Q21 Is your agency willing to work toward a common approach to prioritizing
actions, where factors such as the urgency of the threat addressed are
considered in conjunction with the feasibility, cost and efficacy of the proposed
action?
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
76.92%
10
No
23.08%
3
Total
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
13
Page 88
Q22 Do you agree the following terms are useful to categorize actions for
prioritization? Check ALL that apply.
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Stongly agree
Expected effectiveness
Cost estimate
Funding availability
Implementer availability
Start date
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Total
30.77%
4
61.54%
8
7.69%
1
0%
0
13
7.69%
1
76.92%
10
15.38%
2
0%
0
13
7.69%
1
61.54%
8
30.77%
4
0%
0
13
0%
0
69.23%
9
30.77%
4
0%
0
13
7.69%
1
46.15%
6
46.15%
6
0%
0
13
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 89
Q23 Species distributions, habitat conditions, threats and actions may all be
related spatially. The "eight required elements" for SWAPs refer to spatially
explicit actions. For example, an action or threat could apply to one, many, or all
patches of a habitat type, or only those in a certain town. Which spatial units do we
need to accommodate in our lexicon in order to describe the location actions
are intended to be implemented? Check all that apply, recognizing that some
may be used in combination.
Answered: 13
Skipped: 2
Answer Choices
Responses
State, county, or town boundary
92.31%
12
Management or planning districts or conservation zones
61.54%
8
Watersheds
61.54%
8
Habitat classes
46.15%
6
Habitat patches
53.85%
7
Population points
30.77%
4
Total Respondents: 13
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
Ecoregions for terrestrial species & watersheds for aquatic/ riparian species seem
preferable as overall spatial units. Political units or management / planning /
conservation districts are secondary-scale units at best.
3/12/2013 11:20 AM
2
last 2 if possible but likely not to have enough data
3/10/2013 9:36 AM
3
don't think we'll have the last 2 for many species or habitats
3/10/2013 9:27 AM
4
Implementation happens at a finer scale (e.g., site) which is not represented by
these categories. For Questions 19-21: seem bias to obtain a "yes".
3/7/2013 6:09 PM
5
ecoregions
3/5/2013 12:01 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 90
Q24 Identifying data gaps and uncertainties is a requirement throughout SWAPs,
for the purpose of framing the adaptive management process. Is your agency
willing to adopt some common ways to describe uncertainties, so they can be
consistently addressed by monitoring, performance tracking, and/or research
in an adaptive management context?
Answered: 12
Skipped: 3
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
91.67%
11
No
8.33%
1
Total
12
Q25 Identifying data gaps and uncertainties applies to multiple SWAP elements:
species/habitat distribution, status, and condition, and also threats and actions.
Therefore, our common lexicon needs to accommodate a means to identify
uncertainties and corresponding monitoring or research for each SWAP element.
Are the following terms sufficient to describe different general TYPES of
uncertainty that might be identified across all SWAP elements, even though
some of the suggested types may not apply to all SWAP elements?
Answered: 12
Skipped: 3
Agree
Uncertainty of Causality
Uncertainty of Effectiveness
Uncertainty of Status
Uncertainty of Measurment
Information Gap
Disagree
Don't know
Total
75%
9
0%
0
25%
3
12
83.33%
10
0%
0
16.67%
2
12
83.33%
10
8.33%
1
8.33%
1
12
58.33%
7
8.33%
1
33.33%
4
12
81.82%
9
9.09%
1
9.09%
1
11
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
A variety of limiting factors could be influential over time & space:
presumably these could overlap with "uncertainty of causality" and
"information gap" but they are not a clear fit within the above
matrix.
3/12/2013 11:35 AM
2
These need to be defined.
3/7/2013 6:21 PM
3
Information gap seems like a driver of 1-4
3/5/2013 12:05 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 91
Q26 Which general categories of monitoring and research does the lexicon
need to accommodate? Check all that apply.
Answered: 12
Skipped: 3
yes
It is not necessary for the lexicon to categorize monitoring and
research actions
no
18.18%
2
81.82%
9
72.73%
Threat Detection
8
9
100%
Presence/Absence Surveys for SGCN Distribution
11
27.27%
10
18.18%
11
0%
0
11
9.09%
1
90.91%
Reproduction/Demography
10
10
9.09%
10
9.09%
10
9.09%
11
9.09%
1
81.82%
Detect Contaminants/Pollution/Air & Water Quality
11
1
90.91%
Genetics
11
1
90.91%
Survey Habitat Quality
11
1
90.91%
Detect Habitat Change
11
2
90.91%
Relative Abundance/Density
11
3
81.82%
Change in Threat Status
Total
9
11
18.18%
2
11
#
Please list others.
Date
1
Most of these could be a need given the array of taxa under consideration,
but they should be not addressed routinely for all SGCN species in the
Northeast. Is this necessary or useful in regional coordination, or is it implicit
that some flexibility is needed here amongst participants? For instance,
"relative abundance / density" & "survey habitat quality" might sufficient in
core range within the region, but other categories could be crucial at
periphery of range. I can see some standardization for basic presence /
absence surveys on SGCN species, but other topics are uncertain in
general.
3/12/2013 11:35 AM
2
last one is one threat
3/10/2013 9:37 AM
3
the last one is a specific threat so why separate it out
3/10/2013 9:29 AM
4
determine the habitat requirements of a species; determine life history of
a species; identify locations of habitat
3/7/2013 4:17 PM
5
Threat detection should include threat characterization. Not sure which of
these would cover/include disease monitoring.
3/7/2013 2:57 PM
6
gack
3/5/2013 3:05 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 92
Q27 Does TRACS provide sufficient guidance toward a SWAP lexicon
for tracking the performance of implemented SWAP actions?
Answered: 12
Skipped: 3
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
16.67%
2
No
8.33%
1
Don't know
75%
9
Total
12
Q28 In addition to the TYPES of uncertainty described above, do you agree the
following terms are useful to DESCRIBE the significance of a particular area of
uncertainty?
Answered: 12
Skipped: 3
Agree
Categorize Level of Uncertainty
Categorize Feasibility of Reducing Uncertainty
Categorize Risk of Consequence
Disagree
Don't know
Total
66.67%
8
0%
0
33.33%
4
12
25%
3
8.33%
1
66.67%
8
12
41.67%
5
8.33%
1
50%
6
12
#
Other (please specify)
Date
1
Need clarification to comment. What's the "risk of consequence of
uncertainty"? Are we relying on worst-case scenarios or other
forecast projections?
3/12/2013 11:35 AM
2
We need more info before we can answer uncertainty questions
3/7/2013 4:17 PM
3
I'm uncertain
3/5/2013 12:05 PM
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 93
Q29 Are you willing to adopt a common standard for documenting the literature
cited in SWAPs?
Answered: 12
Skipped: 3
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
91.67%
11
No
8.33%
1
Total
12
#
Suggested citation standard
Date
1
Journal of Wildlife Management
3/8/2013 6:41 PM
Q30 Is your agency willing to adopt a standard method to document search terms,
keywords, and other metadata to describe sources of information for the
Northeast?
Answered: 12
Skipped: 3
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
91.67%
11
No
8.33%
1
Total
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
12
Page 94
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF COMMITTEE CHARTER AND OUTREACH STRATEGY
Example Committee Charter
Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan
Revising the PA WAP (2015)
Advisory Committee: Roles and Responsibilities
Background: In September 2005, the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) and Pennsylvania Fish &
Boat Commission (PFBC) submitted the first Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan (PA WAP). With a Wildlife
Action Plan submitted by each state and U.S. Territories, this congressionally mandated document
maintained the eligibility of Pennsylvania for receipt of State Wildlife Grant (SWG) funding. After rigorous
regional and national review, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) approved the Pennsylvania WAP in
2006.
To maintain eligibility for ongoing SWG funds, Congress also required regular updates of the WAP by each
state/territory, at an interval not to exceed 10 years. The next version of the PA WAP is due to the FWS no
later than 30 September, 2015. Considering the extensive volume and scope of this document, the PGC
and PFBC have initiated the process for revising the PA WAP.
As part of this revision process, the PGC and PFBC are requesting advice and recommendations from
partners who were involved in the development of the first PA WAP or who may have a critical role in the
implementation of the current plan or the revised plan (PA WAP 2015). In addition, consultation with
federal, state and tribal agencies, as well as partners and the public, are required as part of the Wildlife
Action Plan revision process (Elements 7 & 8). Therefore, this Advisory Committee (hereafter Committee)
can further assist in addressing this requirement.
For efficiency and effectiveness, we have identified the following Roles and Responsibilities as well as
Operational Guidance for participants of this Committee. We are genuinely seeking your candid and
constructive advice in the revision of the PA WAP.
Roles & Responsibilities
1.
Advisory:
a. This committee will function in an advisory role only.
b. PGC and PFBC reserve the right to use, modify or to limit use of any recommendations or
materials provided by the Committee.
2. Participation:
a. Participation in the Committee is voluntary and members should not feel obligated to
participate.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 95
b. To maintain a manageable committee size, participation is by invitation.
i. Additional members may be recommended, but their participation must be
approved by both PFBC and PGC.
ii. Committee members may consult with other partners who may not be part of the
Committee to gather pertinent information.
c. PGC and PFBC recognize that participants have obligations to their agency or
organization. We will strive to minimize the time and inconvenience of participants.
d. Participation in this committee will not provide any advantage in securing current or
future funding from State Wildlife Grants or other sources, provided by either the PGC or
PFBC.
e. Participants will provide all professional courtesy to other members (see details in
Operational Guidance below).
3. Meetings: The PGC and PFBC recognize that increasing travel expenses are impinging upon
the budgets of state, federal and non-governmental organizations. Therefore:
a. In-person meetings will be kept to a minimum (estimated 2 per year).
b. Conferencing and web-ex will be used to foster communication between in-person
meetings.
c. If technical teams/sub-committees are formed, the leaders of these groups will be
responsible for coordinating technical team meetings and conference calls. PFBC and
PGC will assist in facilitating these meetings/calls.
4. Travel Expenses:
a. Participants will be responsible for their own travel expenses, unless funding is available
to offset travel costs.
5.
Tasks:
a. Committee participants may be asked to develop new materials, provide existing
materials, gather information or other necessary tasks, to assist with the revision process.
b. Copyrighted or restricted material must be acknowledged and thoroughly referenced.
c. Due dates for tasks will be developed through mutual consent by the participants.
6. Acknowledgement:
a. The conservation and protection of Pennsylvania’s natural resources is a collaborative
effort. PGC and PFBC are truly appreciative of the efforts and support from partners.
b. All participants will be gratefully acknowledged in the revised PA WAP.
Operational Guidance
Overview: This is a statewide effort with national significance and we recognize that participating
members of this Committee will represent the interests of their respective agencies and organizations. We
also respect that this project is in addition to each member’s standard duties and responsibilities. The
following operational guidance provides a foundation for the responsibilities of participants to ensure
timely completion of the revised Wildlife Action Plan.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 96
Collegiality: This project has a common goal (i.e., a completed, revised plan) and provides an opportunity
to build camaraderie.



Have fun!
Make new acquaintances and build upon existing relationships.
Share your knowledge and learn from others.
Timelines: Established timelines are to ensure timely completion of the project.

Please abide by timelines for meetings, draft documents; conference calls, and related
activities

When participating (e.g., verbal or written ideas), please be mindful of time constraints. If a
topic requires further discussion, propose an alternative venue.
Mutual Respect & Trust: A strength of this Committee is the diverse knowledge and experience of its
members. Committee products will be based upon our collective contributions. Scientific discourse can be
productive (and occasionally messy), so keep in mind the following guidance for participation:
 Respect all contributions & ideas.
 Critiques should be directed at the ideas not the person. The tone of such critiques should be
constructive and not degrading, condescending, or inflammatory.
 Minimize non-subject discussions. Keep to the topic, unless absolutely necessary.
 Be considerate of distractions and avoid speaking while others are speaking -- wait until you
are called upon or there is an appropriate time for providing your comment.
 Minimize “side bar” conversations.
 Encourage participation by all members.
 Avoid hidden agendas. Be open about potential conflicts of interests.
 Place cell phones on “manner mode” and if receiving a call, minimize disruption to the group.
Shared Roles & Responsibilities: The complexity and requirements of this project require shared
roles and responsibilities. Participants will strive to share the tasks and responsibilities by:
 Volunteering for tasks, especially those for which they have special expertise or interests.
 Being proactive in providing information that can assist with filling data gaps and advancing
ideas.
 Being responsible for keeping current on the status of the project, even if they are unable to
participate in all meetings, conference calls, or similar discussions.
Decision-Making: It is unlikely we will all fully agree on all aspects of the various products. Further, as
Advisory Committee members, information provided represents recommendations to the Commissions.
The PGC and PFBC are responsible for the final Wildlife Action Plan. Therefore, the following guidance is
provided for decision-making:
 Members present during specific meetings or conference calls are encouraged to participate
fully in the decision-making process.
 Adapt a “will live with” decision-making format.
 Given the short project timelines, not all members will be present at each meeting or
conference call. As decisions are made or conclusions reached, those not in attendance agree
to move forward as a team and not retrace discussions or decisions causing unnecessary backtracks for the team as a whole.
 Be open-minded and creative. As differences in viewpoints arise, strive to actively listen to
the other person’s views and rationale.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 97

Decisions not receiving “will live with” support will be provided to the PFBC and PGC for
resolution. Explanations will be provided for any final decision.
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 98
Example Public Input Plan
This plan identifies three types of stakeholders and sets general and specific communication goals
for each.
Audiences Targeted
#
Tier 1
StakeholdersTWW, DNR,
Fed/sate partners
Collaborators
Goal: Consult and
collaborate
Tier 2
StakeholdersInterested but
limited
investment
Goal: Inform
and involve
Tier 3
General
Public
Goal- Inform
Email, (record dates)
Email, (record
dates)
Quarterly (Same as websitesee below)
Email, (record dates)
Email, (record
dates)
Initial mailing , then distribute
at meetings & presentations
throughout 04-05
X
April- Intro materials
July- GCN info and solicit
October Conservation
actions - solicit input
Jan 05- C Actions draft
April- June 05 Draft plan
September 05- Final Plan
Type of Promotion
Direct Mail/email
Fact sheets/ program material
Direct mail/email
Brochures/Flyers
Website- Updated quarterly
Phase 1- Introductory material
Phase 2- GCN species/habitat info
Phase 3- Conservation Actions, Threats
Phase 4- Conservation Actions Draft
Phase 5- Draft Plan update
Phase 6- final plan announcement
Target Date
maps and threats to
help ID Conservation
Actions
X
Planning Committee meetings
DNR/agency internal memos- Inreach
TWW meetings/correspondence
Meeting- Every month
monthly updates
monthly emails minimum
X
Newsletters- put in org newsletters
X
X
Magazine articles- DNR or state
conservation organizations
X
X
X
Quarterly to every 6 months
Public relations: press releases
Quarterly X
X
X
Quarterly with website
updates
Workshop
June- GCN JanuaryConservation Actions
X
X
X
2 for Tier 1 ,possible invite to
Tier 2
Exhibit /poster at Meetings
X
X
DNR staff and TWW staff briefing/report
at all meetings possible
Distribute brochures,
and updates
Distribute
brochures, and
updates
Quarterly to every 6 months
Every Possible state meeting;
set up traveling exhibit
Distribute
brochures,
and updates
All meetings possible
Develop schedule and list
Presentations to Tier 2 and 3 groups
As requested
The Northeast Lexicon – December 31, 2014
Page 99